Re Zopponi
[2008] QLC 95
•22 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re Zopponi [2008] QLC 0095
PARTIES:In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 20330 by Frank Zopponi
FILE NO:AML00036/2001
PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease
DELIVERED ON: 22 May 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr FW Windridge, Judicial Registrar
ORDER/S:1. Hearing dispensed with.
2. 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, 269(4), 270(1)
APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the Papers
WINDRIDGE JR: This is an application by Frank Zopponi under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for a mining lease over 25.0408 ha of land on Lot 1 on CF11 being part of the Palmer River Resources Reserve, located approximately 4 km north-north-east of Maytown. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Mareeba on 22 June 2000 by Ralph De Lacey.
Request to dispense with a hearing - Section 270
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. There were no objections to this application. I am satisfied that there is sufficient information before me to properly consider this matter. 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), I have relied upon the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration sworn by the applicant and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal and the Mining Registrar’s Report in relation to this application. I note the original applicant was one Ralph De Lacey but the lease has been assigned firstly to Cheryl Fitzgerald and then lastly to Frank Zopponi who is deemed now to be the current applicant.
Section 269(4) (a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with?
A Certificate of Application was issued by the Registrar on 23 June 2000 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 with respect to an application under Part 7.
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 gold, silver ore, and the normal mining infrastructure associated with the operation, including water supply, living quarters, treatment plant and settling dams needed to facilitate the mining operation. The initial applicant was the holder of a valid prospecting permit which authorised marking out. The area is generally known for the production of alluvial gold. I am satisfied that there is adequate evidence of mineralisation.
Section 269(4I – 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 alluvial gold mining methods, treating the removed material on 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.
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. The applicant has sought a mining lease over the whole of the surface area. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. The lease area basically follows the creek alluvium.
Section 269(4) (e) Is the term sought appropriate?
The applicant seeks a term of 10 years. There is no evidence to suggest that a 10 year term is inappropriate. The term is the total term of the complete mining project. 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 to complete the mining operation.
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 initial applicant held a prospecting permit at the time of marking out. The consent of the Trustees of the Reserve has been obtained. 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 Resources Reserve and there are numerous leases in the area.
Section 269(4) (j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof?
The draft environmental authority was issued. 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. I take into account that there was no objection to this application on public interest grounds.
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.
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