Re Van Den Elsen

[2008] QLC 173

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Re Van Den Elsen [2008] QLC 0173

PARTIES:In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 50218 by Martin John Van Den Elsen and Peter Paul Van Den Elsen

FILE NO:AML00206/2005

PROCEEDING:  Application for mining lease

DELIVERED ON:                  22 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane

MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar

ORDERS:1.      Hearing dispensed with.

2.    I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that Mining Lease No. 50218 be granted over the whole of the application area for a term of 50 years to Martin John Van Den Elsen (50%) and Peter Paul Van Den Elsen (50%).

CATCHWORDS:                  MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION

Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 245, 269(4), 270(1)

APPEARANCES:                  Not applicable – Heard on the Papers

1. O’CONNOR JR: This is an application by Martin John Van Den Elsen and Peter Paul Van Den Elsen under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for a mining lease over land as described in the application about 5 km north of Helidon for the purpose of mining for sandstone and the establishment of site for overburden, living quarters and water supply for a term of fifty years.  The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Brisbane on 16 September 2005.  No objection was lodged before the closing date for objections which was 16 December 2005. 

Request to dispense with a hearing - Section 270

1. I may dispense with a hearing if satisfied as to matters specified in s. 270(1). For reasons that follow at paragraph [4], I am satisfied that the provisions of part 7 of the Act have been complied with in respect of the application. The material supplied by the applicants and the Mining Registrar addresses each of the criteria that I must consider in making my recommendation on this application. I am satisfied that there is sufficient information before me to properly consider this matter. The applicants have requested that the matter be dealt with on the papers by a member sitting alone. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this application be dispensed with.

Section 269(4) criteria

1. 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 applicants. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the applicants with the Department of Mines and Energy and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Court and the Mining Registrar’s Report in relation to this application. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not to all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation.

Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with?

1. A Certificate of Application was issued by the Registrar on 15 December 2005 which can only be done if the Registrar is satisfied that the applicants are eligible to apply for the mining lease and have complied with the requirements of the Act for an application under s. 245 with respect to marking out, notification, service and posting of documents.

Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate?

1. The application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the principal purpose of mining for sandstone.  Sandstone has been produced from this area in the past.  The area is generally known for the production of sandstone, and I am satisfied that the area is generally 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?

1. The applicants propose to mine the area with machinery and a mobile plant which is common practice in this area.  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.

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?

1. The boundaries of the lease have been determined by the area of potential mineralisation.  The applicants have sought a mining lease over the whole of the surface area.  There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate.

Section 269(4)(e) Is the term sought appropriate?

1. The applicants seek a term of 50 years.  There is no evidence to suggest that a 50 year term is inappropriate.  This lease forms part of an ongoing mining project.  The applicants have 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?

1. The applicants have sufficient assets, including the mining equipment required, to undertake the proposed operation.  I am satisfied the applicants have or have access to the necessary financial and technical resources.

Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory?

1. There is no evidence to suggest that the past performance of the applicants has not been satisfactory.   

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?

1. There are no other holders or applicants for exploration tenures who would be affected by the grant.  

Section 269(4)(I) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform to sound land use management?

1. The land is currently unused.

Section 269(4) (j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof?

1. The draft environmental authority was issued.  It requires the applicants to comply with the standard environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects.  

Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced?

1. 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.  

Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease?

1. There was no evidence before me that indicated any grounds which would justify a refusal of the application.

Section 269(4)(m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land?

1. 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

1. 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 purpose and term sought by the applicants. 

BR O’CONNOR

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR