Rocky Hill Coal Mine

Name...anni finsterer.......................................
Address.....44 northumberland ave .......stanmore 2048 NSW...........................
................................................

-
Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Submission for the Rocky Hill Coal Project

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 DUBIOUS
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
anni finsterer

I OPPOSE THE ROCKY HILL COAL MINE..

I am a resident of the Manning Valley & have been for over 30 years.
I visit the Gloucester & surrounding areas on a regular basis camping with my family & friends.
The natural beauty of the area combined with the clear fresh rivers & streams & the quiet ambience make the Gloucester area an ideal location for camping & related activities.
I am concerned that the Rocky Hill Coal Mine & it's proximity to the town of Gloucester will have a major negative impact on the ambience of the Gloucester area & the very reasons that the area is such an attractive destination from a tourist point of view.
I would certainly question the viability of Gloucester as a camping & tourist destination if the proposed mine begins operation so close to the town.
I believe the negative impact of the proposed mine on the tourist industry & the lifestyle of the Gloucester residents & visitors will far outweigh any potential economic benefits of the mine.
I am also concerned with regard to the health impacts of the mine on local residents & visitors.
Regards
John Ford

The proposed mine is too close to residential areas; with the pits
only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and close to the township itself. The environmental impacts are unacceptable, and in not justified by any economic argument.
The health impacts on residents will be significant, with
Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents 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 unjustified to expose the local population to these 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. This will effect property prices and the HEALTH of locals.
The health impacts are far too great
The mine threatens Gloucester's $50 million tourism industry. NOBODY will want to come to a new DIRTY MINING TOWN.
So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not trusted. These mining people DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT PROFITS. They are NOT TRUST WORTHY. We the PUBLIC VOTING people DO NOT TRUST A WORD these Mining people say. PLEASE PLEASE LEAVE Gloucester alone .. Go find another place that is not as LOVED Cherished and LOOKED AFTER as much as Gloucester is. WHY in this day and age of Global Warming and MASSIVE POLLUTION by such companies could ANYBODY even consider ruining a BEAUTIFUL place like Gloucester with a DIRTY STINKING Mine. HOW RIDICULOUS & STUPID.. It is ALL ABOUT MONEY THESE DAYS !!!

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine. Schools and hundreds of homes are within the 5km health danger zone, and the environment will be pillaged and destroyed relentlessly by this project. Future expansion could be as close as 1km from the built up area of Gloucester, and put not only people at risk, but the many native animals and plants in the area as well. The senseless destruction of the area due to this coal mine would also have a flow in effect, damaging the ecosystem overall and polluting the area with the waste produced by the mine.

The source of health and environmental problems will be closer to people and the risks will last longer than the Stratford mine, and only serve to destroy the area as a whole, with no real regards as to the effects. Air, water, and noise pollution will be rampant and cause great harm.

Please reconsider the Coal Mine in light of this.

Kind regards,

A very concerned citizen.

The proposed mine is way too close to residential areas

The health impacts are far too great

The mine threatens Gloucester's $50 million tourism industry

So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not trusted

Have a look at the devastation from open cut mining in the Hunter Valley. It would be criminal to allow that to happen near Gloucester or any other town for that matter.

We are supposed to be utilising renewable energy. Not ruining more beautiful country by allowing more coal mining

Dear Sir/Madam,
I strongly object to the proposed Rocky Hill Coal mine project and the modification to the Stratford mine.
I am a Taree resident and have been for the majority of my life. I have also been a frequent visitor to the beautiful Gloucester region. I hold deep concerns about the environmental impact of these projects, both for the near by towns and also for the towns in the surrounding region including Taree. The Rocky Hill Environmental Impact Statement suggests the potential for a variety of detrimental impacts as a result of the mine including the pollution of the water supply to Taree.
The mine will most likely also have a devastating impact on the tourism industry of Gloucster due to the close vicinity of the mine to the town and also due to the pollution and environmental impacts it will have on the natural environment.
Gloucester does not need this mine, NSW does not need this mine. There is widespread recognition that from an economical and environmental perspective, coal mining is no longer the way forward for this country. The short term financial gain that the mining company and NSW Government may recieve from this mine is not worth the long term devastation and irreparable damage these projects will cause to both the Glocester region and the wider environment.
The NSW Goverment should oppose these projects.
Regards,
Hanna Deer.

he 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 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 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
1. It is far too close to the town and the residents will suffer from the effects of air pollution,noise and related health issues.
2. Water to the Manning Valley may be affected by run off from the mine.
3.This is a beautiful area and gateway to the world heritage Barrington Tops so tourism will suffer and this is a major factor in bringing money to the town.
I and many others retired to this town because of its natural beauty and we do not wish for it to be spoilt by a mine

My objection to the proposed mine is firstly because it's location is ridiculously close to existing residential properties. No industry can be justified for the impact it will make on the health and well being of people who chose to live in this setting for the very advantages a country lifestyle offers.
It is an environment conducive to not only bringing up children in a healthy atmosphere but also conducting farming on prime agricultural land. The sacrifices asked of this community do not in any way justify the commercial gains of a coal company.
An open cut mine would devastate an area as beautiful as the Gloucester Barrington - we've seen the effects of this type of mining, many times, in other parts of New South Wales.
We're only too familiar with the impact this type of degradation of our environment has on the health of the people living within the reach of the mine's pollution.
I must object in the strongest possible way to the company's proposal to operate for 21 years. It can only be understood by the community to be anti social and greedy.
There is no place in the Gloucester/Barrington area for an open cut mine.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine and the Stratford Coal modification Application No.SSD-4966 MOD 1.

I lived with my family at Gloucester from 1990-97 while I was in the role of Head Teacher at Gloucester High School. I remember Stratford Coal mine being described as a "boutique"mine, that would remain small. I am a regular visitor to Gloucester, have close friends there & have watched from afar & listened in dismay at the impact of the proposed coal mine developments fuelling nasty social tensions in what was a close knit community. Gloucester is a picturesque place, the tourist hub for its rich environment. As a teacher I am concerned at the potential health impacts on students, the concern that water contamination will occur and that the mine will lurk close to homes. I strongly oppose this development.

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 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.
Yours faithfully

I have not made a reportable political donation

Dear NSW Government
Above all else please respect the views of the majority of Gloucester residents and don't let the short term economics of the coal mine effect their long-term future and identity.
I understand environmental impacts are the price we have to pay and share for our energy needs and the economy. But who will benefit from the coal itself, Gloucester? They haven't asked for the mine.
Give the area the chance to contribute and provide land for an alternative renewable energy source, and not one like coal that we all know needs to be phased out, including here by stopping the reliance of others on it. Giving them this alternative is fair and should facilitating economically if required. This way no one can be accused of simply not wanting their area disturbed and not contributing to the economy.
Regards

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.

Do you know why I appose this mine? I am a 20 year old that has moved away for university but returns to live in the same house I have lived in for 20 years every holidays. I am devastated at how close this mine is to my house, I can literally step off of my land and be in the over burden area. Instead of looking out my childhood bedroom window and seeing beautiful scenery I will be looking at over burden. I have been to hundreds of places (in Australia and overseas) and have not found a place I love more than Gloucester. We are jeopardizing our beautiful town. I'd also like to point out I am an asthma sufferer and this will greatly affect mine and many others health if this mine goes ahead. It disgusts me that if this goes any further the government is disregarding the health of our future generations. I am not against mining, I understand that at this point in time it is necessary for Australia and that more environmentally friendly options are being looked at and it has obviously helped our town economically before, but I am strongly against this particular mine.

The proposed mine is too close to residential areas.
The proposed pits are only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and barely 3km from Gloucester township. Historically such a project and its planners have total disregard for the people and animals living under the impacts from noise and air pollution, blasting, loss of amenity and lifestyle. Not to mention the total disregard for health of land and water.
The community has no reason to trust commitments from the mining company made during its application, nor conditions imposed by the Planning Department if approval is given. Previous Gloucester and the Hunter Valley project conditions have been changed only taking in concerns from the Mining companies. Conditions regarding mine rehabilitation, night-time work hours, noise, blasting, dust, and the footprint of the mine are untrusted.
It is known there are plans for a "Stage 2" of the coal mine already. Thereby the impacts will be greater.

The health impacts are 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.
It is also incompatible with the hydrology systems which run through Gloucester and down into the valley.
Are we going to let another historical town die because or bogus economic arguments from people who don't even live in the region? Are we going to trust that commitments made by these companies and the planning department will be upheld when their track record is poor and they both have vested interests?
The only acceptable outcome for the Rocky Hill application is to reject it outright.

I'm against the Rocky Hill Coal Mine.

The mine is bad for the for the locals and environment.

To whom it may concern,

This open cut coal mine application must be rejected for the following reasons:

** Gloucester is a place of residence and has great tourist value. An open cut coal mine close to where people live is unthinkable. Health issues are a major concern for the townsfolk due to the inevitable air and water pollution which the mine would produce.

** History has provided us with enough evidence to show that water pollution is a byproduct of these mines. It is again unthinkable that by allowing this mine to go ahead, will jeopardise the water quality (drinking) for the town and local area.

** The area of Gloucester is a tourist area. The special natural and biodiverse areas such as Barrington Tops rely on Gloucester as the greater tourism area. Having an open cut coal mine is totally incompatible with the idea of nature based tourism.

** At the Paris Climate Agreements, Australia agreed to lowering our dependency on fossil fuels and increasing our renewable energy target. Approving an open cut coal mine is in direct opposition to the agreement the federal government made on our behalf. Based on this you have no option but to reject this mine.

Gloucester
L

[Draft]
This message hasn't been sent.Saved on: Sat 24/09, 11:06 AM

I have only visited Gloucester once. I was immediately impressed and fell in love with this NSW paradise. It is a haven I wish to re-visit. As a pensioner my holidays are few and far between, so only very special places are on my re-visitation bucket list. You can image my shock when I discovered that this NSW paradise is scheduled to become an open-cut mine or more realistically a future hell hole.

I am horrified to learn that:

The proposed mine is extremely close to residential areas
Why would the planning committee even consider an open-cut mine proposal so near to Forbesdale and Gloucester? The proposed pits are only 900 metres from the Forbesdale residential estate, and barely 3 km from Gloucester township. The impacts from the noise and air pollution, blasting immediately remove all aspects of quiet enjoyment of life for these residents. Then comes the loss of amenity and lifestyle on surrounding residents which are simply unacceptable. The economic arguments put forward by mine proponents are dubious but the impact on the residents is far too clear and apparent.

Risk of water contamination is too high
Why would you put an open-cut mine on a know flood plain with a history of flooding? 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 which will affect 80,000+ people, their livestock, domestic pets as well as native wildlife. Plus the damage to all the crops and native fauna that are eaten by livestock, residents, visitors and native animals. The Manning River flows on to the sea and polluted water will damage our precious coastal areas and marine life as well.

The health impacts are far too great
Why would NSW Government allow and open cut mine so close to Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents who live within 5 km 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. As a person who has chronic bronchitis and asthma I cannot visit area with particulate pollution. As a tourist why would I want to visit a locality destroyed by mining? It is my informed choice not to visit this region if an open-cut mine is operating. The taxpayers and voters who live here do not have any choice as Gloucester is their home and workplace.

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 the pristine nature of this important local industry. This region must be protected from pollution. Why risk a proven $50 million locally generated and sustainable and thriving tourism industry? Why risk healthy and growing tourism revenue in NSW? The monetary follow-on goes into the local economy and provides work for the people here. The taxation raised from this local work-related industry goes in to NSW and federal tax coffers. Mining profits go overseas and into deep pockets. This area will become impoverished because of the ravages of mining and will need Australian tax-payers welfare to support it. Once the mine has gone it leaves huge environmental damage to cleaned-up by Australian taxpayers and what is left of the destroyed local communities. Once the mining boom is gone what industry(ies) will we have to fall back on?There is only one that comes to mind and that is sustainable, eco and nature driven tourism: so why destroy our known profitable tourist havens?

So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not trusted
The Gloucester community and all informed Australians have 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 to often 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 not trustworthy or transparent and honest. It is known, for example, that there are plans for a 'Stage 2' of the coal mine. This tragic and proven planning practice reality is unconscionable and does not enhance any trust in the mining industry or Government regulators.

The only acceptable outcome for the Rocky Hill application is to reject it outright. So I ask you to do what is right and reject this proposal.



Lesley Killen (Ms.)