Valantine v Etheridge Shire Council - [2016] QLC 55

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Valantine v Etheridge Shire Council [2016] QLC 55*

PARTIES: Lois Maree Valantine
(applicant)

v

Etheridge Shire Council
(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA567-15

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Hearing of application for grant of mining lease under s 268 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989

DELIVERED ON: 28 September 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Matter heard on the written material at the request of the parties.

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: WA Isdale

RECOMMENDATION: In accordance with section 269(1)(d) and 2(a) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the Court recommends to the Minister that the application for Mining Lease 100020 be granted in whole. The road reserve is not sought and must be excluded.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES — MINERALS — MINING FOR MINERALS — TITLES: RIGHTS, PERMITS, LICENCES AND LEASES ETC — EXTRACTION TITLES — OTHER MATTERS — where the Applicant applied for mining lease — where respondent Council objected — where Applicant confirmed grounds for objection excluded — where the Court recommended to Minister application be granted.

Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 268, 269

APPEARANCES: The parties made written submissions.

The application

The applicant has applied for Mining Lease (ML) 100020. It is sought to be for a period of 20 years and the purpose is for mining of gold and tin as well as lead, diamonds, silver and tantalum / tantalite. There is proposed to be a processing plant, living quarters and a workshop. There will be machinery and storage, a water pipeline, vehicles and a haul road. The area is about 28 km south, south-west of Georgetown. The mining is intended to be by alluvial means. The surface area will need to be accessed so that mining can be carried out and the associated machinery and structures put in place. There will be soil dumps and mining and rehabilitation will be carried out progressively. Grazing on the land will be interrupted as the mining and rehabilitation proceed. The land is presently used for grazing and, the applicant says, for illegal fossicking by people with metal detectors. The area is 58.16 ha.

The objection

The Etheridge Shire Council is the sole objector to the ML sought being granted. The respondent Council objects on the basis that the applicant’s material was not clear about whether the tenure was sought to be granted over Flat Creek Road. The relevant section of the road is maintained by the respondent. The objection was to the grant of the ML and the surface area of the road and the road reserve abutting it.

The process

As required by the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Act) the objection was referred to the Court. The parties have provided written submissions to the Court and asked that the matter be determined without an oral hearing.
The written submissions have focused on the area of concern to the respondent. It is understandably concerned to ensure that the ML does not include the road reserve upon which is Flat Creek Road. The respondent maintains that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Valantine v Etheridge Shire Council

Details

AGLC: Valantine v Etheridge Shire Council [2016] QLC 55
Case: [2016] QLC 55
Decision Date: 28 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Valantine lodged an application with the Etheridge Shire Council for a mining lease to extract minerals from a specified area of land. The Council objected to the application, leading to a judicial review by the court. The central issue before the court was whether the proposed mining operation constituted an appropriate land use, considering the existing and potential future uses of the land.

The court examined the current and prospective uses of the land, which were for grazing, and whether the mining operation would be consistent with these uses. The court noted that the application explicitly excluded any illegal fossicking activities and did not seek to include the road reserve in the mining lease. In its analysis, the court balanced the economic benefits of the proposed mining operation against the potential environmental impacts and the importance of preserving the land for its primary use as grazing land. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the mining operation would be an appropriate land use, given the exclusion of the road reserve and the focus on the primary land use for grazing.

The court found that the proposed mining operation aligned with the primary use of the land for grazing and did not pose a significant risk to the environment or other land uses. The court also highlighted that the road reserve was not sought in the application and should be excluded. Based on these findings, the court recommended to the Minister that the application for Mining Lease 100020 be granted in its entirety, with the exclusion of the road reserve. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing economic development with the preservation of land for its primary uses.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

(m) taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of that land, the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use.The current and prospective uses of the land are for grazing. The Court is not concerned to maintain any illegal fossicking. The road reserve is excluded from the ML sought. Taking these things into account, the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. The Court recommends to the Minister that the application for Mining Lease 100020 be granted in whole. The road reserve is not sought and must be excluded.

CITATION:	Valantine v Etheridge Shire Council [2016] QLC 55*
PARTIES:	Lois Maree Valantine (applicant)
v
Etheridge Shire Council (respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA567-15
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing of application for grant of mining lease under s 268 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989
DELIVERED ON:	28 September 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Matter heard on the written material at the request of the parties.
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	WA Isdale
RECOMMENDATION:	In accordance with section 269(1)(d) and 2(a) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the Court recommends to the Minister that the application for Mining Lease 100020 be granted in whole. The road reserve is not sought and must be excluded.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES — MINERALS — MINING FOR MINERALS — TITLES: RIGHTS, PERMITS, LICENCES AND LEASES ETC — EXTRACTION TITLES — OTHER MATTERS — where the Applicant applied for mining lease — where respondent Council objected — where Applicant confirmed grounds for objection excluded — where the Court recommended to Minister application be granted. Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 268, 269
APPEARANCES:	The parties made written submissions.