Rocky Hill Coal Mine

Too often assessments of mining proposals are judged not on the foundation of the science but on the basis of the narrow views of a vocal minority. It is critcally important to have rigorous and thorough environmnetal assessments completed prior to undertaking any mining activities and then have strict conditions placed on the approval to ensure that all of the commitments made within the assessment are actioned. In this case it is clear that the company has undertaken a thorough assessment and their proposals to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of mining activities are sufficient to manage the risk to an acceptable level.

There are plenty of examples in both NSW and QLD where coal mines have co-existed with agriculture and tourism for the mutual benefit of all stakeholders.

I fully support the Rocky Hill Coal Project on the basis that it has addressed the potential environmental impacts for the area, and it will significantly contribute to both the local and state economies through employment, consumption of goods and services and generation of royalties.

I feel that this project will be beneficial to Gloucester and for surrounding areas by increasing local employment and training opportunities.

The proximity to town is too close.

The health impacts of coal mines are well understood, and are largely related to proximity. The closer you are the worse they are.

Another concern is that this is a small mine for the State but it will have a huge impact on our town.

I am also really concerned at the economic and social implications at the end of the mine's life, especially as it is likely to displace tourism and farming in the meantime.

There is restrictions on how close wind turbines and CSG can be to residential areas. Why are there not similar restrictions on open cut coal mines which have been shown to have greater health risks.

The proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project is too close to the town of Gloucester and residents' dwellings.
The town should be allowed to retain its 2km environmental buffer zone.
The town and residents will be affected by the mine, noise pollution, air pollution, health issues. It is just too close to where people live and dwell.
A mine this close to town will adversely affect Gloucester's tourism. Gloucester is in a very scenic valley, people come here to live and visit because of its natural beauty, clean air and water, clean rivers. A coal mine right beside the town will spoil this.
I am also concerned about the effects on water, mining should not be allowed in a water catchment area such as this valley.
I am also concerned about the geological disturbances caused by mining, the waste products and pollution caused by mining.
Our land and water is sacred, it is non-renewable, we should be true guardians of our land and not abuse it and keep ripping it up for resources. I think the state government is very short-sighted if it allows this mine to proceed.
Instead alternative sources of energy need to be promoted, that do not have the detrimental effects of mining. Solar power, wind power and other passive forms need to be used instead.

To whom it may concern, I would like to offer my support for the Rocky Hill Project. I have read the EIS summary, and provided the guidelines are followed, I support this project. The town that I love is so desperate for a replacement industry for the timber and dairy industry, that used to be its mainstay industries. The town is desperate for the jobs and the flow on jobs caused by a prosperous industry.
My family are fifth generation locals, and it breaks my heart that my grown children have had to move away from the area to gain meaningful employment. As a business owner in the town, I see on the cards us soon having to leave the area, as we are still of working age, and our business is struggling to support us.
As retirees living in the town and surrounds who have made their income elsewhere, who seem to be against ALL new industry, they may feel its ok for the town to turn into a retirement village, and have the time to travel for supplies, without any viable industry to financially support the town all other business's will wither and fail, so they will have too.
We can't wait for the project to start, and our town to come back to life.

I object to the mine going ahead for the following reasons:
Close proximity to my house
Extra Noise
More Dust
More Traffic
The affect on the environment
Unsure of potential health risk

I object to the mine going ahead for the following reasons:
Close proximity to my house
Extra Noise
More Dust
More Traffic
The affect on the environment
Unsure of potential health risk

My wife and I are opposed to the Rocky Hill coal mine for the following reasons.......
* The mine would be too close to Gloucester township and any negative effects to the town and it's residents would be exacerbated by this proximity.
* The mine would cause the property values in Gloucester and particularly in the nice housing estates bordering the mine site to drop substantially.
* Air pollution would pose an increased threat to the health of local residents. This phenomenon is becoming increasingly evident and well documented in areas of high extractive industry infestation
* Water degradation will obviously occur because of the mine's position in the catchment area of the Avon River which feeds the Manning and provides water for thousands of citizens in downstream council areas.
* The mine discourages the establishment of agricultural and other non- extractive industries because of the risk of contamination to crops and the uncertainty of water availability and quality into the future.
* Gloucester's already threatened tourist industry will be further disadvantaged by the loss of the attractive landscape which visitors have enjoyed south of the town.
* Traffic flow will increase and become more "industrial" in character on the roads around the mine. This will create a more hazardous environment for local motorists and more so for many recreational cyclists, walkers and runners who utilise these quiet rural byways.
* Noise and lights would disturb the rest of residents contiguous to Rocky Hill mine.
* Importantly, the potentially dreadful combination of the AGL gasfield and the existing huge Yancoal mine just south of Rocky Hill with the new project would magnify the array of bad things which are being systematically foisted upon an overwhelming majority of Gloucester residents who are vehemently opposed to the wholesale industrialisation of the valley.
* The Rocky Hill project in common with the threatened CSG field appears to demonstrate not even a vestige of "social licence' in it's disposition.
* The project is even more preposterous in light of the drop in coal prices and the laying off of approximately 80 miners and numerous other sackings in mining related industries. These job losses reflect the transient and unreliable character of the industry. Clearly this project is highly unsuitable for such an environmentally blessed and picturesque place as Gloucester and would bring no positive long-term outcome whatsoever.

We came to Gloucester five years ago to retire because we found the scenery and quiteness very relaxing,to put an open cut mine so close to houses would be a disaster.
If you decide ti go ahead the mines should be compelled to buy all the houses within a three kilometre area as they will be most affected by all the noise and lights also dust.
If the mine goes ahead people wont be able to sell their houses privately,we hope this mine does not go ahead.


regards Bill Perry

I make this submission as a previous Coal Miner in the Hunter Valley.

I found the on-ground management of impacts as stated in this EIS to be reasonable and effective. The impacts (which are many) are managed and mitigated to an acceptable level.

This acceptance reflects the view of most I have spoken to who are the silent majority not the ideologically opposed vocal minority.

I would like to show my support for the mine, as long as the strict guidelines of the EIS are followed, our town desperately needs the jobs directly and the flow on jobs created because of the industry. ie engineering, food, fuel, etc.
Our town is becoming a retirement village and really needs new industry to bring it resuscitate it.

I am greatly concerned by the Rocky Hill Coal project based on its very close location to the township of Gloucester and many of its residents.
Also, I understand that no Health Risk Assessment (conducted by NSW Heath) has been submitted. Why? No further developments on this proposal should continue until this important assessment has been conducted and tabled for public viewing.
I appreciate that society uses a huge amount of energy to run its many operations, but I would like to see development of renewable energies NOT dirty and unsafe fuels like coal and gas.
Further I have concerns about the risk to all affected water ways and farming areas. Unless proposed activity can be shown to provide absolutely NO risk, then it shouldn't happen. Why risk it?
Profit making ventures should never be more important than risking peoples health, livelihoods and the health of our farming land.
Food security is going to be an important issue in the years ahead, so why risk damaging farming land and water ways that may well be critical in providing food in the years ahead. It just doesn't make sense to me and seems morally wrong.
Finally are GRL and AGL prepared to go down the pathways of class actions against them in the years ahead if indeed their activities do lead to health and livelihood impacts? What provisions have they put in place to address this possibility?
If these companies really are sincere in wanting to listen to community comments, then they should be prepared to answer these concerns honestly and immediately. They should cease all operations until the affected people and surrounding communities are satisfied that all operational activities will be safe and agreeable to them. Its as simple as that.

We purchased a block of land in the Thunderbolts Estate 9 years ago with a view to retiring in the beautiful township of Gloucester. No mention was made at the time of a proposed open cut coal mine within 3kms from where we built our home. We put our home on the market 3 years ago at the then market value of $550000, and the home has proved unsaleable.We propose that GRL purchase our home at the above price, particularly as the Exploration Licence cuts through the Thunderbolt Estate, and the mine will definitely pose a threat healthwise. We urgently seek your agreement to our proposal.

The Rocky Hill project should not be permitted with 2km of any towns, residential properties, cattle properties or vineyards. If new projects are not permitted with 2km of horse studs, as well as residential properties and vineyards, the same should apply to ALL projects, retrospectively.

Cattle should be included in the 2km zone. Cattle are eaten by humans, with the mine so close to growing stock, chemical residues may well be ingested by cattle and get into the food chain.

It was documented in the 1970s that children living near to major intersections had lead residue in their hair. Chemical residues from mining activities so close to the town of Gloucester, cattle properties and residential homes, is sure to manifest itself in health problems within the community in years to come.

The cost of future medical assistance and possible legal action could well end up being in excess of the royalties received in the short term from mining close to residential areas.

I object to this proposal because it is to close to a populated area and residents will be adversely effected by noise and dust. Approval of this application will increase the risk of the nearby residents. I admit that we need coal and all that it produces, however in this instance the local effect will be devastating.

The Rock Hill open cut coal mine is not to progress to operational stage.
1. It is too close to the township and housing subdivions in Gloucester.
2. The dust will swirl about the town no matter how much care is taken by AGL to keep this to a minimum. AGL cannot control the weather.
3. River water from the Avon and Wauchivory will be affected and when in flood how is this going to be controlled by the mine site.
4. Noise polution will be a constant problem with the wash plant in operation. The loading of the train with the coal. It is all very well to say operation hours are from 6am to 10pm.
5. Where I live I will not be affected by noise I feel but other things like dust I could be.
6. The value of property will go down. Who wants a coal mine in their back yard.
7. So I object to the Rocky Hill Coal Mine

We live opposite the proposed washery and we have concerns about noise, dust and polution. We are also concerned about the devaluation of our property, particularly as we are considering our options for retirement.

The Project would provide much needed investment and jobs for the Gloucester local economy.
The project can provide a new template for how open cut operations can be done through leading practice environmental management and co-exist with agriculture.
NSW Gov. need to demonstrate that the state is in fact open for business.

My wife and I are the owners of the property identified in the Rocky Hill EIS and as being affected by exceedances of criteria from the proposed mine development.
Notwithstanding, as long term residents of the Gloucester area, business owners and people who have been and continue to be affected by the demise of the timber industry, and observers of the changes that have occurred to the town over many years, we are supportive of the proposed development subject to it being operated, and the safeguards implemented, as identified in the EIS.
We have formed our opinion following a review of the EIS, including the details of the planned development and, in particular, the EIS sections and specialist reports relating to noise and air quality impacts and the risk to our health. We see no reason to dispute the findings of those studies nor to pay any credence to the unsubstantiated comments regarding impacts on air quality, health, water, tourism which are being promoted by a council which, despite what they say, does not reflect the broader community view but that of minority groups with an anti-development agenda.
Based on our personal experience and observations, we are firmly of the opinion that without developments such as Rocky Hill, a development which has been designed to reflect the concerns of the general community, business investment in Gloucester will continue to decline as will jobs; there will be minimal opportunities for our children, and they or we will be forced to leave the area. Services and infrastructure maintenance by Council will continue to go backwards in the absence of adequate revenue; the population will increasingly be dominated by retirees, and the town as we have known it will disappear. Tourism, though providing some income for the town through the likes of the many coffee shops, is not and will never, in our opinion, generate enough income or meaningful employment, nor ensure the town's viability. These things only come through a diverse economy and employment base.
We have spoken at length with GRL management (including their CEOs) over the past years regarding a number of matters, including the content and findings of the EIS, the implications of them and future options that may be open to us in the event of an approval. We have been impressed with their openness, willingness to discuss issues and potential interactions and are firmly of the belief that they and their company are genuinely interested in becoming openly accepted, valued and integral members of the Gloucester community, and undertaking their activities in a manner which minimises impacts and maximise the benefits.
Notwithstanding our support for the Project, we expect that in determining the application, our interests will be protected through the conditions in any development consent granted.

I support the Rocky Hill Coal Project.

The project is a small modern open cut mine which has been designed (and the original design significantly modified) to incorporate detailed considerations of both the social and environmental aspects of the project.

The design and future commitments from the proponent, GRL, make it clear they are serious about addressing the concerns raised during the development of the EIS. The final landform is an example of this and goes beyond best practice by backfilling the final void.

While there will be some undeniable effects from the project, I believe it has been planned in both an environmentally and socially responsible manner and will also have the benefit of undeniable employment and economic benefits for both the local and regional communities.