Rocky Hill Coal Mine

I totally object to this project/development proceeding for the following reasons:
1. It is way too close to the town of Gloucester. Dust and pollution of the town's water supply are inevitable as the developers cannot control which way the wind blows.
2. Gloucester, NSW, Australia and the World do not need further carbon dioxide from coal added to our atmosphere and therefore increasing the amount of global warming. There are already too many coal mines. Inevitably when the bottom falls out of the coal mining business and prices fall to unsustainable levels we will be left with a great big hole in the ground and a huge cleanup bill.
3. You cannot trust mining companies to stick to their conditions of approval. Mine rehabilitation, night-time work hours,noise, blasting, dust and the footprint of the mine cannot be guaranteed.
4. Tourism will be severely impacted by this big hole in the ground.
5. I worry about the health impacts to my friend who lives in Gloucester and already has to cope with a chronic illness.

I oppose the Rocky Hill mine in Gloucester.

The mine is too close to Gloucester town.

The increased traffic will not be able to be supported on The Buckets Way as the road is already falling apart.

The noise dust and air quality impacts on the town will be unacceptable

Dear Sir/Madam
I am opposed to the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the Stratford Mine upgrade primarily for the impact it will potentially have on the health of residents and the environment generally.

Coal mines have a well documented impact on public health and most of the Gloucester township, including the school and the hospital, will be within 5 kms of the mine. As a registered nurse in a public hospital I am well aware of the impacts this will have particularly on the young and the elderly, and the very sick - the people who most deserve our protection in society.

I would ask you please to consider the people of Gloucester.

Yours sincerely
Roslyn Hancock

I wish to support the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project, noting specifically the positive economic and social benefits that will arise as a result of the project.

I also note the best practice environmental management commitments and reduced environmental and community impacts associated with the amended project.

I strongly object to the Rocky Hill Project. Australia should not be mining more coal, we should be steadily closing our existing coal mines. I think it is a disgrace that Australia exports so much coal overseas - we should be helping developing countries with alternative low carbon energy options. Please do not allow this development to proceed.

I oppose the Rocky Hill coalmine due to the following reasons:

1. Far too close to human settlements, being the outskirts of Gloucester town.
2. Threats to water sources used by humans.
Health impacts from open-cut coalmines 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 coalmine 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

I Object to this project because I believe it's approval is consent to large company's and multinational corporations to continue to invest time, energy and money into an increasingly superfluous industry at the expense of the environment and the community's around destructive projects such as these. It is also becoming more humiliating as an Australian not to be embracing newer, cleaner source's of energy.

The Rocky Hill Project is too close to the township of Gloucester im not anti mining and i know it will provide jobs for some local people history shows a lot of workers wont live in the area they will travel too and from the mine .. Long story short its just too close to town .. Steve Wilson .

I object to the Rocky Hill Coal Project
* 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 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 an abomination within this scenic area and completely incompatible with this important local industry, which must be protected.
* 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.
* So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not to betrusted.
The community has no reason to trust either commitments from the mining company made during its application, or 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 untrustworthy. 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 dont thin this mine should go ahead. An open cut mine in the Gloucester area puts in grave danger the main sustainable development of that area of tourism and agriculture. Coal is in oversupply and expanding coal mining puts the Government at grave risk of being non compliant with the Paris target in relation to global climate change. Open cut holes are now leaving the NSW Government in jeopardy of major rehabilitation payouts as the coal companies seek bankruptcy to avoid liabilities in restoring degraded areas. This is not able to be supported in the Gloucester region with its tourism potential and world class National Parks.

The amendment makes logical use of nearby underutilised infrastructure. I trust NSW Planning Process to rightly undertake a rigorous assessment of the project's impacts, both positive and negative, and for a determination to be made on its merits without interference.

I oppose the Rocky Hill mine. Completely. Coal is being wound back all over the world - except in Australia where the politicians go hand in glove in the world of Non Renewable energies.
Gloucester already has one coal mine - they have had their share. The Rocky Hill people have NO social licence and its time that that lack is taken into account. Listen people! We have to start using renewable energies and getting rid of rotten, lying companies who do not do any rehab etc when their scheme falls through. No Rocky Hill mine.
Yours sincerely, Margaret Smith

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.
- See more at: https://www.wilderness.org.au/protect-gloucester-have-your-say-rocky-hill-coal-mine-0#sthash.jMHpjCJW.dpuf

Submission for the Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD-5156
Stratford Coal Extension Project - Application No SSD - 4966 MOD1
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and Stratford Mine modification on the following grounds:
1. We MUST divest from Coal
Australia's first responsibility is to phase out coal from our own energy supply over time. As a wealthy developed country, we must also do our part to support developing countries with their own renewable energy plans. The Australian Government can choose whether to remain down the deep, dark coal mine of the past, or change course to become part of today's climate and energy solutions, and help create a brighter future for Australia and the rest of the world.
2. Impacts on Health
Health impacts from open-cut coalmines are well documented. GRL plans to generate 944 tonnes (over 1600 cubic metres) of dust every year. With most of Gloucester township, including the hospital and schools, falling within the 5km health impact zone of the Rocky Hill mine (and with the residential area of Forbesdale only 900m), 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 coalmine within 5km of Gloucester and within sight of the Bucketts Way will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area. GRL claims that overburden from the mine will be used for `visual amenity barriers'. The largest is over 50m high and over 2km long. They will be visible to travellers along the Bucketts Way and residents on the eastern side of the valley. They will be as ugly as the mine and only provide a visual, but not `safe' barrier. The mine will risk the jobs of hundreds employed in the tourism industry. Gloucester's clean, green image needs to thrive and grow. We want industries that enhance the rural area and promote our claim to fame of being the gateway to the Barrington Tops World Heritage area. Furthermore, Gloucester sits in a quiet, rural valley with dark, starry night skies - these will disappear with the lights from a mine.
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.
5. Rehabilitation
The bond put aside for rehabilitation is never enough, particularly if the mining company moves on and leaves the clean up to the taxpayers, as is commonly the case.
6. Extensions to the mine.
GRL have already earmarked the area north of the proposed Rocky Hill mine for `Stage Two'. The exploration licence extends north up the Avon Valley to the town and there is no minimum distance from residences.
7. No benefit to the NSW Government and the people of NSW
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis recently labelled the coal industry the poorest performing sector in today's global economy. Failure to recognise these rapid shifts in the global energy landscape and to begin embracing our abundant renewable energy opportunities will damage the Australian economy and cost Australians dearly. GRL will pay $63M in revenue and $60M in taxes. The life of the mine is 16 to 20 years. That means the company is paying just over $3M a year for revenue and taxes.

Submission for the Rocky Hill Coal Project Â- Application No SSD-5156
Stratford Coal Extension Project Â- Application No SSD - 4966 MOD1
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and Stratford Mine modification on the following grounds:
1. We MUST divest from Coal
Australia's first responsibility is to phase out coal from our own energy supply over time. As a wealthy developed country, we must also do our part to support developing countries with their own renewable energy plans. The Australian Government can choose whether to remain down the deep, dark coal mine of the past, or change course to become part of today's climate and energy solutions, and help create a brighter future for Australia and the rest of the world.
2. Impacts on Health
Health impacts from open-cut coalmines are well documented. GRL plans to generate 944 tonnes (over 1600 cubic metres) of dust every year. With most of Gloucester township, including the hospital and schools, falling within the 5km health impact zone of the Rocky Hill mine (and with the residential area of Forbesdale only 900m), 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 coalmine within 5km of Gloucester and within sight of the Bucketts Way will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area. GRL claims that overburden from the mine will be used for Â`visual amenity barriersÂ'. The largest is over 50m high and over 2km long. They will be visible to travellers along the Bucketts Way and residents on the eastern side of the valley. They will be as ugly as the mine and only provide a visual, but not Â`safeÂ' barrier. The mine will risk the jobs of hundreds employed in the tourism industry. GloucesterÂ's clean, green image needs to thrive and grow. We want industries that enhance the rural area and promote our claim to fame of being the gateway to the Barrington Tops World Heritage area. Furthermore, Gloucester sits in a quiet, rural valley with dark, starry night skies Â- these will disappear with the lights from a mine.
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.
5. Rehabilitation
The bond put aside for rehabilitation is never enough, particularly if the mining company moves on and leaves the clean up to the taxpayers, as is commonly the case.
6. Extensions to the mine.
GRL have already earmarked the area north of the proposed Rocky Hill mine for Â`Stage TwoÂ'. The exploration licence extends north up the Avon Valley to the town and there is no minimum distance from residences.
7. No benefit to the NSW Government and the people of NSW
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis recently labelled the coal industry the poorest performing sector in today's global economy. Failure to recognise these rapid shifts in the global energy landscape and to begin embracing our abundant renewable energy opportunities will damage the Australian economy and cost Australians dearly. GRL will pay $63M in revenue and $60M in taxes. The life of the mine is 16 to 20 years. That means the company is paying just over $3M a year for revenue and taxes.

The mine will be positive for employment and business in an area in need of jobs and business

I'm completely opposed to this mine because of the effects that it will have on the local community.

This mine will come much too close to residential areas. The noise and dust impacts will be too great to allow for a peaceful existence for residence.

the so called mitigation commitments have been allowed to be changed in the past by other companies and therefore have no real value.

I also object to his mine on the ground that it will release tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a time when our Federal Government has made commitments to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees and this can not be done whilst allowing new mines to be opened.

Dear Sir/Madam

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the Stratford Modification

One would have to ask, why would the NSW Government justify a green field coal mine just 900metres from a residential area. Gloucester is an area of rural beauty, with sustainable industries of tourism, dairies and cattle farming. Not the place for a coal mine.

Even coking coal is not in demand around the world. There is enough stockpiled to adequately supply the steel making industry. Coal mining is not a sustainable industry, with fluctuating prices and worker layoffs.

The benefit to the NSW Government and the people of NSW is debatable. GRL will pay $63M in revenue and $60M in taxes. The life of the mine is 16 to 20 years. That means the company is paying just over $3M a year for revenue and taxes. Most of the profit from this company will go overseas.

The NSW Government needs to invest in renewables, particularly in rural areas where employment is low. Towns, like Gloucester could be embracing the new world of solar, thermal solar, biomass, wind and hydro. So many options with huge benefits, like, reduced carbon emissions, lower power bills, regional economic development and stable job creation.

Gloucester could be the new renewables hub instead of following an out dated industry like coal. Isn't it about time we followed the rest of the world into the 21st century?

Yours faithfully
Mick Scott

I own 4530 The Bucketts Way South, Gloucester.

This property overlooks the proposed mine and is zoned R5 Large Lot Residential. The land has been zoned for the future residential development of Gloucester which currently overlooks a beautiful, picturesque valley.

Redevelopment of the valley for mining will create a great big ugly hole in the landscape right at the gateway to Gloucester and in the back yard to our property.

Landscaping around the mine will not block the ugly view from this property no matter how many fancy pictures the mining company would like to have presented to you. This property is elevated about the area of the proposed mine.

Once operating I believe that dust will also be a concern for our property and for the township of Gloucester. Other residents in mining towns such as Singleton and Muswellbrook have constant issues with dust which I believe Gloucester will experience if the mine progresses.

Gloucester is a beautiful township with many visitors based on its natural beauty. A development of an above ground mine so close and visible to the town will ruin the landscape and the existing tourism. Whilst the mine may create jobs indirectly for the short to medium term when they up and go it is hard to see how Gloucester will sell itself for the future with an ugly hole at its front door.

As a landowner I only came to find out about the mining application through a friend. I hope that you have advertised for comments on the proposal extensively.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine and Stratford Mine modification because of its closeness to homes and impact on the health and well-being of the people living there, its impact on the natural beauty and tourism in the area, and the general impact of coal mining and use on the environment.
Climate change is already occurring and burning fossil fuels, especially coal, is the principal cause. It is important to phase out coal as quickly as possible in any case, to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. Alternative energy sources are available and getting better. Particularly in Australia, wind and solar energy are suitable alternatives; and solutions to he intermittent problem are progressing rapidly. Further coal mining benefits no-one except the coal companies.