Rocky Hill Coal Mine

Dear Sir/Madam,

the community at Gloucester already has mining impacting on their health with dust, and this mine is far too close to the community.

Mines impact tourism greatly, and Gloucsters $50 million tourism industry will be reduced by the noise, dust and the visual impact on this otherwise pristine environment. And once the mine goes, the town dies, because there is no other industry to sustain it.

We do not trust assurances regarding "commitments to reduce mining impacts" - there is plenty of evidence around the country that mining leaves the natural environment broken beyond repair.

* The proposed mine is way too close to residential areas. ◦The proposed pits are only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and only barely 3km from Gloucester township. The impacts from noise and air pollution, blasting, loss of amenity and lifestyle on surrounding residents are simply unacceptable, and in no way justified by the dubious economic arguments put forward by mine proponents.

* The health impacts are far too great ◦Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents are within 5km from the proposed coal pits. Particulate pollution from open-cut mining is known to lead to reduced respiratory health and increased death rates in surrounding communities. It is completely unfair and unjustified to expose the population of Gloucester to these health impacts.

* The mine threatens Gloucester's $50 million tourism industry. ◦Gloucester is a unique and beautiful town on the edge of the Barrington wilderness, and it has a thriving nature-based tourism industry. Open cut coal mining is completely incompatible with this important local industry, which must be protected.

* So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not trusted. ◦The community has no reason to trust either commitments from the mining company made during its application, nor conditions imposed by the Planning Department if approval is given. We have seen elsewhere in Gloucester and the Hunter Valley that these conditions can be changed later, and usually are. Conditions regarding mine rehabilitation, night-time work hours, noise, blasting, and dust, and even the footprint of the mine are untrusted. It is known, for example, that there are plans for a "Stage 2" of the coal mine. The only acceptable outcome for the Rocky Hill application is to reject it outright.

The health impacts are far too great
Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents are within 5km from the proposed coal pits. Particulate pollution from open-cut mining is known to lead to reduced respiratory health and increased death rates in surrounding communities. It is completely unfair and unjustified to expose the population of Gloucester to these health impacts. Like asbestos.

I object to this mine because for a start it is too close to homes and the Gloucester township. The Forbesdale Estate is only 900m from the proposed pits, which makes it a totally irresponsible proposal and a totally inappropriate site.

Having lived in the coal-oversaturated Hunter I know too well what that close proximity to an open cut coal mine is like. The noise and air pollution from the mining operation, the blasting and the transport will completely change the life of the residents there. They were there first and came in good faith to that rural valley; their wishes deserve to be treated with respect and the GRL proposal dismissed.

Why should one private company's wishes be more important than those of existing landholders or of existing businesses? Like the food, wine and tourism ones, all depending on Gloucester, as Gateway to the Barringtons, keeping its 'clean and green' image.

A coal mine is absolutely incompatible with this growing tourism industry. This mine would mar the scenic landscape of Gloucester, foul its air and rural peace and do longterm damage to that image.

The serious adverse health impacts of coal are well known; there is no level at which damage does not occur from the high particulate pollution from such a mine. As in the Hunter, increased rates of respiratory and cardiac illnesses and early deaths from these would be the guaranteed impact on the residents.

It is impossible to justify exposing the people of Gloucester, most of whom, the schools and the hospital, are within 5km of the planned pits, to these impacts. Not risks, guaranteed impacts.

No amount of 'rigorous' or 'stringent' conditions can protect the community, regardless of what the company promises or the Planning Department imposes. All too often I have seen the conditions later amended to suit the company.

Hence communities are right not to trust such conditions for noise, dust emissions, operating hours, blasting, siting of pits, wastewater disposal, life of mine etc. No impact or no project should be the rule and that is not possible here.

It is clear to me that the only way to protect Gloucester is to reject this mine altogether.

The proposed mine is way too close to residential areas.
The proposed pits are only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and barely 3km from Gloucester township. The impacts from noise and air pollution, blasting, loss of amenity and lifestyle on surrounding residents are simply unacceptable, and in no way justified by the dubious economic arguments put forward by mine proponents.

The health impacts are far too great
Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents are within 5km from the proposed coal pits.

Gloucester is a unique and beautiful town on the edge of the Barrington wilderness, and it has a thriving nature-based tourism industry. Open cut coal mining is completely incompatible with this important local industry, which must be protected.

Jobs are needed in the Gloucester area. Those that object aren't looking at the big picture social and economical benefits that local employment provides is fundamental for Gloucester to continue to prosper. Ask yourself this question do you know how many people call Gloucester home and have for many years with young family's that have to leave their family's for weeks at a time to provide for them and miss out on precious family time, because of the lack of local job opportunities. No I didn't think so of those that object to local employment. Have a good hard think about your decisions that affect many young family's.

The proposed mine is way too close to residential areas.
The proposed pits are only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and barely 3km from Gloucester township. The impacts from noise and air pollution, blasting, loss of amenity and lifestyle on surrounding residents are simply unacceptable, and in no way justified by the dubious economic arguments put forward by mine proponents.
The health impacts are far too great
Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents are within 5km from the proposed coal pits. Particulate pollution from open-cut mining is known to lead to reduced respiratory health and increased death rates in surrounding communities. It is completely unfair and unjustified to expose the population of Gloucester to these health impacts.
The mine threatens Gloucester's $50 million tourism industry.
Gloucester is a unique and beautiful town on the edge of the Barrington wilderness, and it has a thriving nature-based tourism industry. Open cut coal mining is completely incompatible with this important local industry, which must be protected.
So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not trusted.
The community has no reason to trust either commitments from the mining company made during its application, nor conditions imposed by the Planning Department if approval is given. We have seen elsewhere in Gloucester and the Hunter Valley that these conditions can be changed later, and usually are. Conditions regarding mine rehabilitation, night-time work hours, noise, blasting, and dust, and even the footprint of the mine are untrusted. It is known, for example, that there are plans for a "Stage 2" of the coal mine. The only acceptable outcome for the Rocky Hill application is to reject it outright.

The proposed mine is way too close to residential areas.
The proposed pits are only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and barely 3km from Gloucester township. The impacts from noise and air pollution, blasting, loss of amenity and lifestyle on surrounding residents are simply unacceptable, and in no way justified by the dubious economic arguments put forward by mine proponents.
The health impacts are far too great
Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents are within 5km from the proposed coal pits. Particulate pollution from open-cut mining is known to lead to reduced respiratory health and increased death rates in surrounding communities. It is completely unfair and unjustified to expose the population of Gloucester to these health impacts.
The mine threatens Gloucester's $50 million tourism industry.
Gloucester is a unique and beautiful town on the edge of the Barrington wilderness, and it has a thriving nature-based tourism industry. Open cut coal mining is completely incompatible with this important local industry, which must be protected.
So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not trusted.
The community has no reason to trust either commitments from the mining company made during its application, nor conditions imposed by the Planning Department if approval is given. We have seen elsewhere in Gloucester and the Hunter Valley that these conditions can be changed later, and usually are. Conditions regarding mine rehabilitation, night-time work hours, noise, blasting, and dust, and even the footprint of the mine are untrusted. It is known, for example, that there are plans for a "Stage 2" of the coal mine. The only acceptable outcome for the Rocky Hill application is to reject it outright.

"I Object to the Rocky Hill Project"
1.The proposed mine is only 3klms to 5klms from the township ,schools, hospital etc. In fact the whole of Gloucester would be affected by noise and in fact may develop respiratory problems from dust /blasting and loading onto cartage trucks.
2.It would pose a threat to the uniqueness of the town. Also, to the pristine Barrington Wilderness, a unique tourist destination which brings many people to the area.
3. rehab of mines - in most cases left abandoned and never rehabilitated. Mining companies have a bad record

Too close to residential area, reduced property values, health & saftey of residents at risk, pollutants in air and water supply. Stock losses and financial hardships to community. Property zones would need to be reclassified to mining not rural or rural/residential

Hello
I recently drove through the Gloucester area as a tourist. It is a beautiful place. I would be heart broken to think a dirty great mine was spoiling it. I wouldn't return for another look. I understand tourism is a big earner and it's forever, where a mine is short term.
I am against this mine for the sake of the local tourism, plus the health and other impacts this mine will have.
Finally pushing mines through like this will lead to political upheaval and banning of local mining altogether, eventually, so best to stop this now.
Yours sincerely
Mr Ben Keyzer

Dear Sir / Madam

Application no. SSD 5156

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine.

It's been proven, coal is damaging to the environment.

Should this mine be approved, it will be only 900 metres from residential homes.

Luis Urby

Dear Sir / Madam

Application no. SSD 5156

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine.

I believe it's reckless to have a mine such as this one, so close to the community of Gloucester.

My concerns are:

The health of residents due to dust particles.

The noise levels reaching residents, the closest being only 900 metres from the mine.

You advise no evening hours for the first 3 years. Yet you don't advise of the evening times for the next eighteen years.

Susan Urby

When will humanity learn! We can't eat coal. Can't drink gas. And when the last tree has been bulldozed and the waterways too polluted to drink, we can't eat money.
NO to Rocky Hill coal project!! The temporary gain (for a few) is not worth the long lasting devastation of many others, of wildlife and of our beautiful environment.

I strongly oppose the proposed Rocky Hill Coal Mine. I am concerned about the detrimental health effects particularly for those currently suffering from lung disease and other respiratory problems. Gloucester has an ageing population who will be greatly at risk. I am also concerned in this same regard for present and future children and I do not believe the health risks associated with the mine have been fully researched.

Furthermore, the proximity to local landholders and the towns is also a major cause for concern.

I also worry about the effects on our water and our general environment. I do not feel that the NSW government is looking after its citizens when coal mining is introduced into such a beautiful, community minded area. Nor is the Government taking into account the seriousness of global warming.

Gloucester is a great tourist gateway to the Barrington Tops, beautiful rivers and bushland. Tourism is one of our key industries. A coal mine and its possible future extension will render Gloucester a dying town.

As for myself, I have only recently moved here. When I bought my residence it was in the knowledge that CSG mining was to cease and The Rocky Hill Mine had been rejected by the NSW government.
I suffer from acute asthma and COPD and feel that my condition will deteriorate as I live in a windy area and will be subject to coal pollutants in the air. I also believe that my life span will be shortened considerably. As stated previously, I am not the only one who will suffer thus.

I support the Rocky Hill Coal Project. Approval will good for the economy and provide many jobs for the local area.

I object to the application to commence a mining project at Rocky Hill and and also to the application to change the access requirements of the Stratford washery at Stratford.

My objection is on the basis of two major issues.

The first is on health grounds.
Over the last 25 years in my role as a GP in Gloucester I have seen significant mental health impacts on the townsfolk who live in the near vicinity of the present Strafford and Durallie mines and also in the area of the projected Rocky Hill mine. Significant depression and anxiety is common with the antecedents being the threat of dislocation from their properties and the threat of negative economic impacts as their properties are devalued because of proximity to the mine. Many of these people have moved to this area from the city to enjoy the rural values of closeness to nature and enduring relationships with neighbours and their community.They have sought clean air , clean water, varying degrees of self sufficiency and peace from the noise of the city. All these values are totally ruined by a mine on their doorstep.
In areas where there is present mining about the Stratford and Durallie mines there are high levels of stress related to noise from mining operations, particularly blasting and truck movements . There are complaints of dust and complaints also regarding the impact of lighting at the mine site and the light pollution that arises from this. They complain also of the loss of community as neighbours leave and their neighbour's houses are occupied by transient mine workers.
The longterm impacts of dust from particulate matter are much more long term impacts which i am sure are accumulating but which are outside the scope of my experience and expertise. I do not discount them however as further significant impacts , but I am not in a position to document them accurately with my current clinical skills.

The second basis of my objection is on the longterm economic health of the Gloucester community should the mine go ahead.
Regional NSW is changing with population shifting to the environs of the coast and large regional towns. I believe that the only way for Gloucester to maintain growth is through tourism and the provision of an environment attractive to "tree changers" and retirees. Each new arrival brings significant accumulated finances to our valley which results in work for service industries and tradesmen.The development of a mine in close proximity to Gloucester (particularly as this mine will have a huge visual impact on people from the Bucketts Way and the vantage points around town) , will be a massive blow to Gloucester's future attractiveness to retiree and "tree changer" investment.Furthermore I believe that many of the retirees and tree changers that have moved here may well consider relocation elsewhere over the next years should the mine go ahead. To commit to this mine will commit Gloucester to a steady loss of economic viability as it is robbed of its major selling point- it's beauty and natural environment.

Director - Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Rocky Hill Coal Project
-
Application No. SSD-5156
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have included a standard letter below as I can't word it any better. However, my personal sentiments are that this coal mine is far too close to town, schools and hospital. This is a beautiful valley and to pollute it with coal dust is unthinkable. I have children at the local schools and they will spend their days in such proximity that will be detrimental to their health.

The remainder is the standard letter that I support completely.
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project on the following grounds:

1. Proximity to residential areas
The mine is proposed only 900metres from the residential area of Forbesdale. These residents will carry an unacceptable burden and will be impacted by dust, noise and loss of amenity,
resulting in risks to their health and loss of property value.

2. Impacts on Health
Health impacts from open-cut coal mines are well documented. With most of Gloucester township, including the hospital and schools, falling within the 5km health impact zone of the Rocky Hill mine, this places a large percentage of the population at risk. Those most affected by the health impacts are the very young, the elderly and the sick.

3. Impact on Tourism, worth $51M per annum to the Gloucester economy
An open-cut coal mine within 5km of Gloucester and within sight of the Bucketts Way will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area. The mine will risk the jobs of hundreds employed in the tourism industry.

4. Environment
The proposed mine is on the Avon River floodplain and in the catchment area of the Manning River, which supplies drinking water to over 80,000 people. The Avon River has flooded 5 times in 4 years, with 2 floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.

This mine should not be approved.
Yours faithfully

Tracey Murrell

Director - Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No. SSD - 5156

Dear Sir/Madam
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project on the following grounds:

1. Proximity to residential areas
The mine is proposed only 900metres from the residential area of Forbesdale. These residents will carry an unacceptable burden and will be impacted by dust, noise and loss of amenity, resulting in risks to their health and loss of property value.

2. Impacts on Health
Health impacts from open-cut coal mines are well documented. With most of Gloucester township, including the hospital and schools, falling within the 5km health impact zone of the Rocky Hill mine, this places a large percentage of the population at risk. Those most affected by the health impacts are the very young, the elderly and the sick.

3. Impact on Tourism, worth $51M per annum to the Gloucester economy

An open-cut coal mine within 5km of Gloucester and within sight of the Bucketts Way will have an impact on the
visual amenity of the area. The mine will risk the jobs of hundreds employed in the tourism industry.

4. Environment
The proposed mine is on the Avon River floodplain and in the catchment area of the Manning River, which supplies drinking water to over 80,000 people. The Avon River has flooded 5 times in 4 years, with 2 floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.

This mine should not be approved.
Yours faithfully

Barry McGregor

To the department of Planning
I strongly oppose the development of the Rocky Hill Coal Mine on the following grounds:
NO NEW coal mines should be started from now on. We know that the warming of the planet will already be higher than it should be with the coal and other fossil fuels which are already in the pipeline now. To add new mines and more fossil fuels to the world stage is total madness. It is also a quick and greedy-grab plan by a few companies, leaving the great majority of the population and the NSW Government dealing with serious environment and health issues.
I have never ever made any political gifts or donations.
Living in hope, Martine Kalma