Rocky Hill Coal Mine

I object to it for the following reasons:

*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.
*Risk of water contamination is high.
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 five times in four years, with two floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.
*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.

Stop expanding all coal mines. Ethical jobs please.

Everyone can be more happy with a World's best practice transport mix:

Faster main roads for cars, more buses/trains for people to have screen time while travelling, better pushbike paths. Pleases everyone, so we can stop the fighting of motorists vs cyclists vs public transport user.

More dense cities (affordable housing) are faster (spread out suburbs are inefficient) and cost benefit ratios for pushbike paths show increase in society health and increase in business/shops near them.

If you are unhappy cycling, then you are doing it wrong. Don't wait for automated robot cars to stop cars tailgating each other, get the right information, skill up, and be safer than cars now.

SAVE TIME: Combine transport with exercise (needed for body and mind happiness every day) Door-to-door on a pushbike (and finding safe shortcuts in backstreets) can be faster than finding car parking/waiting for buses.










The only negative to pushbikes is the same as learning to ride for the 1st time, very frightening, but very rewarding when you gain the "1st world skill" of "learning to ride a bike". With robot automated cars in the future (invented to mainly save millions of lives from car crashes), the "rite of passage" of learning to "drive a car" will no longer be the modern day "you are now grown up for going out into the world". The next "rite of passage" will be learning to ride a pushbike skillfully and safely (seat height / stopping skills / leg rotation speed for faster more efficient riding. Learning shortcuts, learning the actual safety of cars and lane position). The RMS (state authority) recommends a 3 second safety gap between a car following another car, but most people leave only 1 to 2 seconds. This is why many safety conscious people give up on the car because they cannot control the car dangerously following them. You can gain much more safety and control on a pushbike by learning better skills and back streets. Pushbike advocates love to help people find better backstreets, and to make submissions many government things because pushbikes are a critical part of a happy and ethical society.











Use every opportunity to help solve the whole society problem, and to discover the missing link in transport solutions.

Transition to clean , healthy safe communities with safer energy that creates jobs. Stop urban sprawl making housing unaffordable. More high density affordable apartments in cities for healthy safe communities, that can walk, cycle, public transport for transport. Need to start talking about the elephant in the room. Car culture and urban sprawl producing highways are bad. Then developers use highways to further urban sprawl. We need higher density population in cities to crack housing affordability. We need walk/cycle/public transport for active transport to beat the obesity epidemic, etc, etc

This is why many safety conscious people give up on the car because they cannot control the car dangerously following them. You can gain much more safety and control on a pushbike by learning better skills and back streets. Pushbike advocates love to help people find better backstreets, and to make submissions many government things because pushbikes are a critical part of a happy and ethical society.

I strongly object to approval of the Rocky hill Mining Development at nearby Gloucester.
The proposed mining operations are too close to both residential development and the town itself. Blasting and other noise, and the increased air pollution are not acceptable. The proposed mine is to be located on the Avon River Floodplain, which drains into the Manning River. This river provides drinking water to tens of thousands of Australians.
Mining and tourism are incompatible industries. The proposed mine threatens the local tourist industry, centered on Barrington Tops and its wilderness area.
Citizens have no basis for trust in either company commitments or Dept of Planning imposed conditions, especially as there are already plans for "Rocky Hill, Stage 2". We have repeatedly seen that such commitments and conditions can -- and usually are!-- relaxed later in the mining operation's favour.
Clearly, the proposal should be rejected.

This mine should be stopped for this main reason:
The Rocky Hill open cut coal mine is proposed just 900m from the residential outskirts of Gloucester and in the catchment of the Manning RiverÂ--which supplies drinking water for over 80,000 people.

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.
Risk of water contamination is high.
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 five times in four years, with two floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.
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 oppose the proposed mine for a range of reasons, to wit:

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.

Risk of water contamination is high. 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 five times in four years, with two floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.

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. Having visited the magnificent Barrington Tops several times in the past, I know personally just what precious wilderness is at risk.

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 am objecting to the mine for the following reasons:

The proposed mine is far 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.

Risk of water contamination is high

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 five times in four years, with two floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.

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 this mine

This is an area of outstanding natural beauty and serenity. It is unthinkable to approve a project that will permanently destroy that. Local opinion is overwhelmingly against this development.

As someone who used Gloucester as basis for teaching university-level geological fieldwork and especially palaeontology and came to regard the region as one of the most aesthetically uplifting regions in NSW, I am appalled by the open-cut proposal and the inevitable downgrading of the regional environment -- especially so as coal-mines are well on the way to becoming stranded assets in most areas of the globe.

Please do not allow mining, particularly the open cut coal mine, which is so disastrous for the environment. My concerns regarding such mining include the effects on the Manning River, and the ecosystem which depends on the river for its health, and the people who depend on the ecosystem for their health. Consider the best interests, including financial interests, which would be better served WITHOUT open cut coal mining.

Please don't potentially ruin the health, lifestyle, soil, waterways and livelihood of the residents of this lovely town just for the profit of a few. I grew up near this town. No one can say how my health, or my life may have been forever changed by an open-cut mine just 900 metres from my home. I shudder to think.
Don't willingly put the permanent damage this will cause to present and future generations out of mind. You are choosing the fate of the people you represent - put their health and wellbeing first.

I cannot believe that the state government is even considering this proposal to allow a coal mine in the Gloucester Valley. My wife and I have visited this area many times over the years and apart from it's natural beauty, there are way too many dangers for it to go ahead.
Firstly, to be so close to the village of Gloucester is stupid. This will destroy the town. Then there is the effect it will have on the water catchment. Over 800,000 people rely on this district for their drinking water. Plus all the dust, noise, pollution, extra traffic, ground vibrations.
My parents-in-laws live in an older house in rural South Australia. A new estate was built behind them on former farm land. Their house has become riddled with cracks and movement. That is just from a new housing estate. Imagine the damage to homes from a mine some 800m from town. It will be devastating.
Please, don't let this project go ahead. Coal is a dying industry these days. Yes it will create jobs, but at what cost.
Polluted water, volatile residents, constant court battles, loss of pristine land. All for something that most likely won't see a long future. Remember, mining of coal is on a worldwide downward trend.

Dear NSW government,

Please find my submission points below:

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.
Risk of water contamination is high.

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 five times in four years, with two floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.

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.

Regards,

Jack Quigley

Objections as follows:
Health impacts on local population -air pollution /water contamination/ light and noise pollution
Local school and hospital in 5km radius
Destruction of prime farming land
Concern re lack of rehabilitation of land post mine
Global effects of climate change from mining and burning of fossil fuels

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project because the residents of the peaceful town of Gloucester, and surrounds, would love to keep the area as a safe and quiet part of the world, and do not want another coal mine in the area.
One other possible problem with mining is that our water supply could easily be contaminated, if another mine was to be built.
Not only Gloucester residents are affected, but many people in the Taree and surrounds, as far as Tarbuck Bay in the south, will have their water supply possibly contaminated by mining, if this mine is to go ahead.

In this day and age, is it really in anyone's interests to support this? Fossil Fuels are a dying industry, and opening up a new mine seems to be a silly investment, especially in the face of the growing renewable energy industry, and the changing opinions of the Australian public. If you don't care about health, environment and compassionate reasons why this mine is a bad idea, consider the financial impacts as fossil fuels are left behind and the mining industry with it.

Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD-5156

Dear Sir/Madam

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the modification to the Stratford Coal Extension Project.

There are serious health effects of breathing the air near coal mines. Air pollution takes different forms. We can't see most of the things floating around in the air, but these things, called
particulate matter (PM), can damage our health.

* PM10 particles measure between 2.5 and 10 micrometers (from 25 to 100 times thinner than a human hair). These coarse particles cause less severe health effects. They are often visible, and are caused by smoke, dirt and dust from factories,farming, roads and mining.

* Fine particles are up to 2.5 micrometers in size (100+ times thinner than a human hair). These particles are not visible, and
are more dangerous to human health as they can contain toxic organic compounds and heavy metals. It is these finer
particles that lodge deep in the lungs, and are the more dangerous particles resulting from open-cut coal mining.
Particulates can also contain arsenic and dioxins, which produce oxidative radicals. In addition, machines using diesel fuel emit many toxic chemicals, including nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and formaldehyde, and the low-grade diesel used on mine sites contains far more sulphur than higher-grade diesel. The solvents in low-grade diesel can cause brain damage and any heavy metals or other contaminants cause cancers.
Most Australian air pollution monitors, however, only monitor for PM10 particles, so whilst there is plenty of anecdotal
evidence, it is difficult to get scientific evidence here of the link between fine particulates and ill-health. Studies have been
done, though, in many other countries which have more sophisticated air pollution monitoring systems, such as the UK and USA.

EFFECTS ON THE HEALTH OF INFANTS
These studies show that there is a relationship between infant deaths from respiratory causes and long-term exposure to
fine particulate matter. In addition, babies born to mothers exposed to air pollution are more likely to have low birth
weight and to be born prematurely, and these babies are more likely to have respiratory problems.
Some studies have shown that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is associated with the presence of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. These chemicals, together with formaldehyde, are emitted by machines using diesel fuel. Formaldehyde has caused tumours in laboratory rats. Diesel emissions are carcinogenic, and have been linked to heart attack and stroke in healthy men.
An American study showed that infants who are exposed to relatively higher levels of particulate matter over a period of
weeks to months are more likely to develop bronchiolitis severe enough to warrant hospitalization, and a high proportion of these go on to develop chronic respiratory symptoms of recurrent wheezing and asthma.
Another American study shows an association between respiratory-related deaths of infants (between one month and one year old) and fine particle air pollution in California, adding to previous literature in the United States and in other
countries that air pollution may be associated with some infant deaths.

EFFECTS ON THE HEALTH OF CHILDREN
Babies with respiratory problems often develop asthma as children. Dr Dick van Steenis recently visited Australia from the UK. His studies, and others, showed that both PM1 and PM2.5 particulates produced by open-cut coal mines also cause new cases of asthma to develop in children, especially if toxic waste is present due to known or unknown tipping,
He confirmed a rise in asthma to affect 33% of primary school children living within one mile of an open-cut coal mine, a
cumulative rise to 21 % at two miles and even up to 12% at three miles.

Particle analysis done in the UK show that asthma is caused by
* cut quartz particles less than PM1 in size, which are "second to asbestos in terms of serious effects on the lungs. The body
has to wall off these particles, causing fibrosis, which was called silicosis in underground miners, but which equally applies above ground".
* coal particles less than PM1, which cause inflammation. Human white blood cells can only ingest a certain amount of PM 1-2.5 particulates - the rest are walled off, causing chronic pulmonary obstructive disease and fibrosis.
Dr van Steenis states that the alleged ability to control dust by open-cut mining companies is a fallacy. The PM2.5 and PM1 dust cannot be controlled. The lightness of fine particles allows them to remain suspended for long periods, and to
blow hundreds of kilometres.
Australian Dr Pauline Roberts is concerned about the effect of heavy metal exposure through inhalation of particulate
matter on children's growth and behaviour. High lead levels, for example, have been linked to a reduction in IQ, negative
classroom behaviour, juvenile delinquency and increased violent behaviour.

EFFECTS ON THE HEALTH OF ADULTS
Long-term exposure to air pollution from coal mining leads to increasingly serious lung diseases, such as chronic pulmonary
obstructive disease, fibrosis and lung cancer. There will also be increased incidence of heart attacks, generalised premature deaths, strokes, type 2 diabetes, clinical depression and other conditions resulting from any toxic waste contaminating the site, for example cancers, hormone disorders, birth defects, skin rashes, eye inflammation, and nausea, due to pollutants such as organic compounds, heavy metals, dioxins and even radio-active matter.
In a study of coalmining communities in West Virginia, Michael Hendryx found that high levels of coal production were associated with higher rates of cardiopulmonary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, lung disease, and kidney disease.
The Hunter Valley Research Foundation's 2008-2009 report into Newcastle and the Hunter Valley reveals "an increased
mortality; decreased life expectancy; increased rates of lung, skin and colorectal cancer; and increased rates of death from
breast, cervical and prostate cancer when compared to the rest of NSW in general."

And yet the NSW government quashed a motion calling for a comprehensive population health study to assess the
impact of the coal and power industries in the Hunter.

An American study showed that 55% of open-cut coal mine workers had developed lung damage by twenty years of age. In the USA and the UK, governments are paying massive amounts in compensation for lung damage caused by their failure to exercise duty of care in relation to the health of the population.

This should be a lesson for our governments.

Europe has a Human Rights Convention which can be used by people whose health is threatened by proposed harmful
activities. We Australians have no such safety net. Our governments have changed the laws, with impunity, to give more and more power to mining companies to disrupt the lives and health of our communities.

REFERENCES
Partial list of chemicals associated with diesel exhaust
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/dieselexhaust/chemical.html

Diesel pollution linked to heart attack and stroke in healthy men http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88329.php)

Relations Between Health Indicators and Residential Proximity to Coal Mining in West Virginia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376994/

Effects of Subchronic and Chronic Exposure to Ambient Air Pollutants on Infant Bronchiolitis
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/165/5/553.short

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Air Pollution and Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant Mortality in California
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459937/

Coal opencasting and health
http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/precis/precis%20-%20Opencasting%20coal%20and%20health.htm

Submission by Dr Pauline Roberts to the Senate Select committee on agricultural and related issues; 13 May 2009
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/.../viewdocument.aspx?id

Greens mining http://nonewcoal.greens.org.au/

Air info now: What is particulate matter?
http://www.airinfonow.com/html/ed_particulate.html

You cannot approve a coal mine that is within 900m of a residential area and will place the Hospital, Schools, Aged Care Facilities and many more homes and families within the 5 kilometre health impact zone.

Put the health of the community first before profits to investors, ban this coal mine and all exploration licences so the good people of Gloucester can finally live in peace.

I object to the Rocky Hill Open-cut Mine Proposal just outside Gloucester. The effects upon local air and water quality, and the exceptional beauty of the area will be too devastating. It is simply too close to Gloucester. I have seen the destructive impact of open cut mining in the Hunter and further afield consisting of disease caused by airborne coal dust, destruction of waterways, increased heavy traffic, and destruction of habitat for both animals and humans. It is not necessary to mine so close to towns. Tthere's a great deal of coal out there which is NOT right on the top of established and beautiful towns. G S

This coal development poses significant health and environmental impacts that cannot be ignored. Not to mention the fact that the coal industry is slowly dying and an operating peiod of 20 years is optimistic at best.

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.

Risk of water contamination is high.
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 five times in four years, with two floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.

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.