Rocky Hill Coal Mine

Recently I visited Gloucester on a Saturday and the impression was one of a thriving community. I then returned on the Monday and Tuesday, the change was incredible - the town was dead. When I spoke to some local business owners about the change, I was advised that weekends are not the norm and most businesses were doing it tough, particularly since the recent significant decline in the mining activity, a decline that had manifested itself again in the last few weeks with further redundancies at the Stratford and Duralie Mine. They said that mining had been Gloucester's saviour over the period when the town was affected by the loss of the timber industry, deregulation of dairying and closure of the milk factory. Many also commented on the negative impact on their business from the AGL decision not to proceed with the Gloucester Gas Project.
When asked about tourism and its reported injection of more than $50 million annually into the local economy, they each scoffed, with some questioning whether the total business turnover in Gloucester per week would average much more than a million dollars.
However, they were all confident that things would only improve if the planned Rocky Hill Coal Project was approved as it would create jobs, lead to spending in the town, encourage families or young people who would otherwise leave to pursue education and work opportunities elsewhere to stay and new families to move in to the area and improved opportunities for existing and new businesses without adversely affecting the image of the town.
I have had a look at the EIS for the Project and was impressed as to the lengths the company had gone to in order to minimize any potential direct and indirect impacts from its activities and contribute to the community, and can see no reason why the project should not be approved and the expectations of these business owners come to fruition.

Gloucester is in need of opportunities if the town is to survive in the longer term, opportunities which will only come with the maintenance of a diverse economy. With the impending shut down of the Duralie Mine and the questionable and then only limited future of the Stratford Mine, the current diversity as a consequence of agriculture, limited niche manufacturing, tourism and mining that have led to the development and maintenance of Gloucester as it now is will likely be dramatically affected. There is already evidence in the town of a decline in business activity and confidence as a result of the recent redundancies and slow-down in the mining industry, and the departure of AGL. The Rocky Hill Coal Project represents an opportunity to reverse this trend and, through the implementation of the commitments in terms of environmental management and controls to minimize impacts, along with the Project's economic and social contributions, increase the likelihood of Gloucester having a diverse, sustainable and long term future.
A responsible development like the Rocky Hill Project will bring much needed direct and indirect jobs; opportunities for school leavers and for the currently and recently un- or under-employed; locally-based trade apprenticeships; the movement of working age families into as opposed to out of the town, and assist in the redevelopment of a more balanced age structure. It will also lead to upgrading of infrastructure such as roads and bridges at no cost to the ratepayers who will benefit throughout and beyond the life of the mine. The donation of the $6.5million production-related donation to the charitable trust to be spent on initiatives determined by the community will also provide the community with an opportunity to help plan for the town's long-term future.

This is beautiful land and I visit as a tourist.
I won't be back if the air quality is destroyed by mining.

Rocky Hill Coal Project Â- Application No SSD-5156
Stratford Coal Extension Project Â- Application No SSD - 4966

Dear Sir/Madam

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and Stratford Mine modification 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 in the Avon Valley and in the catchment area of the Manning
River. This supplies drinking water to over 80,000 people. There is definite potential for
contamination of the water in the catchment.

This mine should not be approved. It is a destrucitve plan with little gain for anyone except the mining magnates.

Yours faithfully

VRJ MARGUIN

Please oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project

This mine must not go ahead.
The lands and water involved are far too valuable to our nation's longterm benefit than short sighted coal profits.

All efforts should go to protecting productive land and water above and below ground.
No mining at Rocky Hill please

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine

As a regular visitor with family in Gloucester I cannot see how an open-cut coal mine can co-exist with other industries in the area. Tourism and agriculture are valuable industries, bringing in thousands of people and dollars each year. With an unsightly coal mine in the valley on the way into town I think people will be reluctant to stay in Gloucester and its rural values will be destroyed.

I would be sad to see this area go the way of many other rural communities that have seen mining come and go and been left much the worse in the wake of profiteering resource extraction companies.

We have already seen the harmful effects on the health of people, especially children and elderly members of the community where there is mining such as Singleton and Muswellbrook. To build an open cut mine so close to the community in Gloucester will not only have an adverse effect on the physical health of the people but also on the economic security of the area. At present it is a beautiful area that many tourists visit, especially those wanting to kayak down the unpolluted river. Water quality and the preservation of ground water is also an important reason why the mine should not go ahead

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine.

Why in this time of falling coal values and the push by more and more countries to move towards sustainable energy options are we still entertaining the thought of another open cut coal mine in prime agricultural land? The selling off of Australia's natural resources at the cost of the health of its residents is deplorable. We do not need another coal mine and I see this last ditch attempt at another mine to be nothing but a tax write-off for a mostly foreign owned company in a few years time due to the lack of demand for the product. All at the cost of the health of Gloucester's residents and at the cost of other major industries in Gloucester such as tourism. When the mine opens, the attractiveness of Gloucester as a holiday destination and gateway to World Heritage national parks will plummet and once the mine fails, we'll be left with a gaping hole in the ground, and a ghost town. Despite what some may believe, there aren't enough jobs in this mine for all those in Gloucester who think they deserve one. The short term vision and greed of companies and the government to allow this mine is disgusting. We need to stop lagging behind as a country and put some serious money into sustainable energy options. Australia doesn't need to be backwards cousin of other forward thinking nations. We have great inventive scientists in this country, and its about time we gave them to funding they deserve to drive our country into the future. The money given to the mining industry by the government and the tax offsets available is the only reason we are still having battles like this. We need to put this money into investigating sustainable options!

I oppose this mine due to its closeness to the residents of Gloucester and the well documented health effects of air pollution and dust particulates from coal mines. I also wish to see the EIS updated to use the correct measurement of 50 people per square metre for health impact financial assessment.

Contamination of waterways and groundwater by natural runoff and by purposely diverting water from the mine into local waterways is also of great concern. This runoff will be contaminated by high levels of salts and heavy metals and will affect the local catchments, particularly for sensitive species such as frogs and fish.

The modelled 'rehabilitation' of the site that has been shown to many residents is a joke and far from reality. The cost of properly rehabilitating a site is phenomenal and to show a graphic where trees and shrubs are thriving in just a few years is such fantasy. Who will be footing the bill for removing weeds in the first few years after replanting? Who will be responsible for maintaining the site to ensure it is rehabilitated properly? I doubt GRL will be footing the bill for that for very long and Gloucester will be left with a large mass of lantana, blackberry and whisky grass where their used to be prime agricultural land. Far from 'rehabilitated'.

Overall I feel that that the EIS does not adequately address all the environmental concerns with this mine proposal and/ or does not propose adequate responses to deal with it. The application for the Rocky Hill Coal Project (Application No SSD-5156) and the Stratford Coal Extension Project (Application No SSD - 4966 MOD 1) should not be approved.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine.

Open cut mining is a short term money grab, while agricultural land is a long term sustainable land use. We can't eat coal. I oppose the use of this prime agricultural land in the Avon Valley 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. Most of the profit (what little there is) from this company will go overseas. The financial viability of this mine is questionable at best and without all the Government tax breaks given to the mining industry, this mine would not be even considered a sensible business venture.

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.

I am also concerned about the health impacts of coal dust particulates, noise and pollution. Being so close to the township and even closer to some out of town residents, the health impacts are bound to be real and significant from this mine. I am also concerns about the impacts this mine will have on local waterways and natural ecosystems.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and Stratford Mine modification on the following grounds
1. Proximity to residential areas
The mine is proposed only 900metres from the residential area of Forbesdale and Waulkivory Road. 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. I am greatly concerned for the health of my grandparents who have lived on the Mograni range (less than 1km from the proposed mine site) for over 30 years.
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 in the Avon Valley and in the catchment area of the Manning River. This supplies drinking water to over 80,000 people. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.
This mine should not be approved

My brother lives in Gloucester and My family visits him regularly. I object to the proposed mine because it is too close to the town and will have intolerable noise, dust and visual amenity impacts on residents.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project. Application No. SSD-5156

My opposition to the project is on 3 main grounds.

1. More coal mining will contribute to further climate change

2. This is the worst place to have an open cut coal mine, it's way too close to people's houses and the town of Gloucester.

3. It will cause environmental destruction to an important natural resource ie environmentally important land, habitat, water resources.

Australia has supported the Paris Agreement which means it supports reduction in emissions so that the earth's warming will not go past 1.5 degrees. If we do go past this increase it's been shown the earth will not be habitable in many places. It is therefore completely against Australian government's commitment to the Paris Agreement if we approve more coal mining. It has been shown over and over again carbon emissions must decrease not increase. Approval of another coal mine obviously means more coal is burnt whether here in Australia or whether other place of export. It's plain and simple this must not happen.

I am familiar with the area of the proposed mine site as I visit friends in Gloucester. To propose 4 open cut coal mines in this area is totally unacceptable. There are relatively new housing estates close to the proposed site. In one place the housing estate is just under 1 km from the site. In any one's terms this is absolutely unacceptable. It is impossible to live a normal life so close to mining activities, no matter how much the proponents protest they will not disturb people. It's not only the direct mine activities it's also all the concomitant activities. eg P8 of the executive summary of the EIS gives details of traffic movements around The Bucketts Way, Jacks rd, Waukivory rd, Fairbairns rd. It notes there would be up to 294 light vehicle movements per day and 16 heavy vehicle movements. This is an area where many people live. Some have lived there for many years and some are new comers to the area looking for a quite life. With peak traffic movements occuring between 6am and 7am each day and then further traffic at shift changes up to 4am their lives will become a nightmare. And their properties will loose value. This is unfair and unacceptable.

The natural environment of the Gloucester, its tourist potential and its clean green agricultural reputation would be severely compromised if this mine proposal is approved. Rural areas have suffered over many years with changes in global trade. Gloucester, a previous dairy and timber area has worked hard on transitioning to tourism and small scale local agriculture. The community has worked hard for many years on this. Further coal mining would set back these efforts. Consistently we hear about the resilience of rural communities facing many problems and the Gloucester community shows this over and over. However to approve more open cut coal mines in the area will make it even harder for the community to survive.
The past history of mining companies' rehabilitation failures does not auger well. Maybe GRL will be better. But where are the guarantees?
The overall environmental destruction of the area's natural resources can never be compensated by offsets. Once again the offset policy has been shown historically inadequate. There is no guarantee that this proposal would be any different. Biodiversity loss, like climate change, is a global problem. Approving more coal mining will only add to this problem which in the end impacts all of us.

This proposal should not be approved.

Sally Corbett

I object to the proposed mine because it is too close to the town and will have intolerable noise, dust and visual amenity impacts on residents within the Gloucester Valley.

I support the detailed objection submitted by Groundswell Gloucester.

I strongly oppose the Rocky Hill , Gloucester, NSW coal mine proposal. I am particularly concerned about the very close proximity of this proposed mine to the township of Gloucester. And I am specifically quite alarmed about the air and water contamination issues that go hand in hand with this sort of mining. Local residents should NEVER have their heath and we'll being placed at risk, such as is possible with this development. Nor should our many agricultural industries ( such as dairying, beef and poultry) be potentially jeopardised. I do not want this mine to go ahead.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and Stratford Mine modification on the following grounds:
1.Proximity to residential areas
2. Impacts on health
3. Impact on tourism, worth $51M per year to the Gloucester economy
4. Environment
I grew up in the Gloucester area and it is one of unrivalled beauty and sensitive ecology. This project rips at the heart of the beautiful region.
This mine should not be approved.
Yours faithfully
Megan Bloxom

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
Roger Healey

I have friends in Gloucester whom I visit regularly. I object to the proposed mine because it is too close to the town and will have intolerable noise, dust and visual amenity impacts on residents within the Gloucester Valley.

I object to the Rocky Hill Mine. I chose to move from Sydney to Gloucester in 2010 because of the beautiful countryside, peaceful lifestyle and healthy environment.

This mine is too close to town and is less than 5km from my home.

I am concerned with the adverse impacts upon the water quality of the downstream creeks and the aquatic flora and fauna.

Airborne dust will collect on roofs and will contaminate local rainwater tanks, which may residents rely on for drinking water.

Blasting will result in vibrations which may result in structural damage to nearby buildings and infrastructure.

I question how many new jobs will actually result when we take into account the job losses recently experienced at Duralie mine. The small amount of new jobs that will supposedly be created will not compensate for the overall loss of amenity that Gloucester residents will have to deal with.

Is there any guarantee that overseas workers will not be utilised? The Company states that it aims for 75% employment of local residents by the end of year 3, but any person from any locality is likely to relocate to Gloucester to be near their place of work by the end of year 3, and then becomes a "local resident".

The local character will be changed for the worse. I do not want to live in a mining town and I will probably sell up and move on if the mine becomes operational. It is likely that I will be adversely economically affected by a decrease in the value of my residential property.

I disagree with the mine going ahead as it is too close to our town of Stratford and Gloucester .our valley is very pretty and productive area for cattle, rainfall and rivers I think it is important for our future food requirements.

I have friends in Gloucester whom I visit regularly. I oppose this application because it will create an intolerable noise, dust and visual amenity burden on the residents of the Gloucester Valley.