State Significant Development
Rocky Hill Coal Mine
MidCoast
Current Status: Determination
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
Rocky Hill Coal
Attachments & Resources
Request for DGRS (3)
Application (1)
DGRs (1)
EIS (55)
Submissions (7)
Agency Submissions (11)
Response to Submissions (35)
Amendments (114)
Assessment (3)
Recommendation (3)
Determination (3)
Approved Documents
There are no post approval documents available
Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.
Complaints
Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?
Make a ComplaintEnforcements
There are no enforcements for this project.
Inspections
There are no inspections for this project.
Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.
Submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine Project.
Proximity - The mine boundary will be situated 900metres from Forbesdale Residential Estate of 35 families. Those families will experience unacceptable levels of noise, dust, and traffic. They have already lost their peaceful, rural lifestyle with this threat. Many have chosen not to improve their homes because they no longer have any value.
No one wants to live next door to an open-cut coal mine. The only way they can sell their homes is to the mining company, GRL and they don't want them.
Noise - It is a known fact that noise is the number one complaint from residents who live near coal mines. There is the noise of the mine workings. There is the noise of the loading trains. But the most destructive noise for humans is 'infrasound'. Infrasound causes sleep disturbances and can lead to major health complaints. The Rocky Hill mine will cause high levels of noise for residents close to the mine but also unacceptable levels of noise for residents in Gloucester town.
No amount of monitoring or measuring will stop the noise impact for the residents of Gloucester.
Health - negative health impacts, which can result in serious illnesses, from the dust from open cut coal mines are well known. Most of Gloucester township (including the hospital and schools) falls within the acknowledged 5km health impact zone of the Rocky Hill mine - thus placing a large proportion of the population at risk. Those most affected by the health impacts are our children, the old and the sick. Are the people of Gloucester just collateral damage?
Impact on Tourism - Visitors come to Gloucester to experience the peaceful, country lifestyle.
An open cut coal mine within 5km of Gloucester and within sight of the Bucketts Way will have a major adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area. Tourism is currently worth over $30M to the Gloucester economy. It will be impacted with a resultant loss of jobs and income generated in the township.
Employment - Companies in town are already experiencing the negative impacts of having a mine nearby. One company lost 11 apprentices to the Stratford mine, down the valley. Mining is good for employment if you want to work in a mine. It is not good for people who want to work in other industries in a mining town.
Water - The location of the proposed Rocky Hill mine is on the Avon River floodplain, and in the water 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 February this year. There is real potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.
Cumulative Impacts - If approved, the Rocky Hill coal mine won't be operating in isolation in the Gloucester Valley. Yancoal has requested expansion of its mine at Stratford and AGL is planning on 330 CSG wells in the Valley - many of AGL's wells are to be placed within the Rocky Hill mine and the Stratford mine area. No other area in NSW has coal and CSG companies fighting over the same piece of land. To not consider the cumulative impacts of this mining is reckless and irresponsible.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Noise and Health. This mine is far too close to Gloucester, the Forbesdale Estate and
surrounding areas of farms and lifestyle properties. Noise and coal dust from coal train
movements and loading - potentially at night - is a great concern. Very fine coal dust is a
critical issue that GRL has not attended to - and which appears to be outside of the NSW
government's interest. No one seems to be dealing with the sub 2.5 to 1 micron particles - yet
these are the ones that travel furthest in the air and are able to enter the bloodstream through
the lungs.
Children's Health. The overwhelming medical evidence indicates that coal dust WILL elevate
the number of children suffering long term effects of asthma. A radius of more than 5km is
now well recognised and supported by medical practitioner statistics that show the clear
relationship between asthma cases and distance from coal mines in Singleton. Gloucester
township, schools and hospital are all in the direct path of coal dust borne on southerly winds.
Economics. I do not accept that GRL's economic assertions that their forced entry into
Gloucester will be good for Gloucester's economy which currently relies on agriculture, tourism
and retiree `tree-changers', new light industry and community support services. Tourists and
tree-changers are attracted to Gloucester because of its natural and agricultural beauty and
peace. These industries will be damaged and jobs will be lost.
Rehabilitation cannot be achieved. The geology cannot be `put back'. GRL will permanently
damage geology and its water systems. They will bring to the surface and discard waste coal.
Potentially 30% of what is mined becomes a legacy contaminant for someone other than GRL to
worry about.
There is no state reason to mine this coal and there is no sane reason to damage this valley and community. Please refuse GRL's application.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Noise and Health. This mine is far too close to Gloucester, the Forbesdale Estate and
surrounding areas of farms and lifestyle properties. Noise and coal dust from coal train
movements and loading - potentially at night - is a great concern. Very fine coal dust is a
critical issue that GRL has not attended to - and which appears to be outside of the NSW
government's interest. No one seems to be dealing with the sub 2.5 to 1 micron particles - yet
these are the ones that travel furthest in the air and are able to enter the bloodstream through
the lungs.
Children's Health. The overwhelming medical evidence indicates that coal dust WILL elevate
the number of children sufering long term efects of asthma. A radius of more than 5km is
now well recognised and supported by medical practitioner statistics that show the clear
relationship between asthma cases and distance from coal mines in Singleton. Gloucester
township, schools and hospital are all in the direct path of coal dust borne on southerly winds.
Economics. I do not accept that GRL's economic assertions that their forced entry into
Gloucester will be good for Gloucester's economy which currently relies on agriculture, tourism
and retiree `tree-changers', new light industry and community support services. Tourists and
tree-changers are attracted to Gloucester because of its natural and agricultural beauty and
peace. These industries will be damaged and jobs will be lost.
Rehabilitation cannot be achieved. The geology cannot be `put back'. GRL will permanently
damage geology and its water systems. They will bring to the surface and discard waste coal.
Potentially 30% of what is mined becomes a legacy contaminant for someone other than GRL to
worry about.
There is no state reason to mine this coal and there is no sane reason to damage this valley and community. Please refuse GRL's application.
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Message
*As there has been a significant number of redundancies from mining in the area already.
* There was significant; dairy,forestry and railway employment in this area to help boost the economy and sustain same; however all have been dissovled over time.
*Mining is sustaining the Gloucester economy which will sustain the state economy.
*Those against this project I find have only been in this a short time.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
There are 4 main reasons why we object:
1. The project will significantly devalue our property.
2. There will be a huge increase in heavy traffic passing the front of our residence.
3. We will be impacted by noise, light and dust coming from the mine workings.
4. The development will have a negative impact on the local flora and fauna.
Our property is located on the south side of Jacks Road, 1.9 km from the development with a direct line of sight to the workings. We purchased our property in 2002 to spend our retirement in a location with a beautiful aspect and which was protected by a zoning of "Environmental Protection (Scenic)." The EIS has photographs showing the visual impact of the project, with one taken in Jacks Road some 200m to the West of our property. We allowed the proponent to take photographs from our property for inclusion in the EIS, but these photographs were not used, we can only presume because they would have shown a greater negative visual impact.
Jacks Road is presently a relatively quiet country road, mainly servicing local residents and some heavy vehicles servicing the nearby Speldon Dairy. If the proposal proceeds, the traffic flow is predicted in the EIS to increase to over 300 heavy and light vehicles every day, which will be passing within 50 metres of our house.
Our property has been identified in the EIS as being one which will "experience intrusive noise equal to or within one decibel of the proposed limit more than 10% of the time...."
We already experience some dust pollution from the existing Gloucester Coal workings some 10km distant from our property, it is inconceivable that we will not experience unacceptable dust pollution from the proposed mine.
The EIS states that the proposal will require the widening of Jacks Road. The nature strip of Jacks Road adjoining our property, and that of our neighbour to the East has mature remnant trees that not only are an attractive feature from our property, but also provide habitat for native birdlife, including the endangered Grey Crowned Babbler. Should the widening of Jacks Road proceed, there is a high likelihood that this natural vegetation will be lost.
In summary, we believe that if the proposal proceeds, our property will become almost unsaleable because of the negative impacts from the development of the mine.
If approval is granted, it must include a requirement that all properties such as ours and those in the Forbesdale Estate and along the eastern side of Bucketts Way South between Jacks Road and Fairbairns Lane be acquired by the proponent at a price that reflects their value "before the mine".
There must also be a requirement that prevents the proponent from removing any trees in Jacks Road.
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Message
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
There are 4 main reasons why we object:
1. The project will significantly devalue our property.
2. There will be a huge increase in heavy traffic passing the front of our residence.
3. We will be impacted by noise, light and dust coming from the mine workings.
4. The development will have a negative impact on the local flora and fauna.
Our property is located on the south side of Jacks Road, 1.9 km from the development with a direct line of sight to the workings. We purchased our property in 2002 to spend our retirement in a location with a beautiful aspect and which was protected by a zoning of "Environmental Protection (Scenic)." The EIS has photographs showing the visual impact of the project, with one taken in Jacks Road some 200m to the West of our property. We allowed the proponent to take photographs from our property for inclusion in the EIS, but these photographs were not used, we can only presume because they would have shown a greater negative visual impact.
Jacks Road is presently a relatively quiet country road, mainly servicing local residents and some heavy vehicles servicing the nearby Speldon Dairy. If the proposal proceeds, the traffic flow is predicted in the EIS to increase to over 300 heavy and light vehicles every day, which will be passing within 50 metres of our house.
Our property has been identified in the EIS as being one which will "experience intrusive noise equal to or within one decibel of the proposed limit more than 10% of the time...."
We already experience some dust pollution from the existing Gloucester Coal workings some 10km distant from our property, it is inconceivable that we will not experience unacceptable dust pollution from the proposed mine.
The EIS states that the proposal will require the widening of Jacks Road. The nature strip of Jacks Road adjoining our property, and that of our neighbour to the East has mature remnant trees that not only are an attractive feature from our property, but also provide habitat for native birdlife, including the endangered Grey Crowned Babbler. Should the widening of Jacks Road proceed, there is a high likelihood that this natural vegetation will be lost.
In summary, we believe that if the proposal proceeds, our property will become almost unsaleable because of the negative impacts from the development of the mine.
If approval is granted, it must include a requirement that all properties such as ours and those in the Forbesdale Estate and along the eastern side of Bucketts Way South between Jacks Road and Fairbairns Lane be acquired by the proponent at a price that reflects their value "before the mine".
There must also be a requirement that prevents the proponent from removing any trees in Jacks Road.
Gloucester Aero Club Ltd
Object
Gloucester Aero Club Ltd
Message
The proponent has indicated in the EIS that they will "assist the Gloucester Aero Club in re-orienting or repositioning the airstrip so that it can accommodate the proposed mine area while meeting all aircraft safety requirements." The Club acknowledges this undertaking, but still objects to the proposal on the basis that the standard of the airstrip will be degraded from the current situation.
If approval is granted for the project, we would ask that such approval must contain compulsory conditions as necessary to ensure that the Club can continue to operate in its present location, at no cost to the Aero Club.
Scott Hoy
Object
Scott Hoy
Message
My objection is based on the following:
The mine is located too close to the residential areas of Gloucester and will have negative impacts on the town's amenity as well as on individual property values.
- Surrounding rural properties would be made unsaleable.
- Long-established agricultural activities would continue to be displaced.
- Too many aspects of mine operation and management of impacts have been left out of the EIS on the grounds that they would be covered in mamagement plans that would not be developed until after the project is approved.
- No cost-benefit analysis of the project has been presented.
- Potential royalties to the State appear to be greatly overestimated.
- The net employment increase for Gloucester residents would be small (only 15 - 30 jobs), which would be outweighed by the negative effects on the Gloucester community.
- Noise from the mine - especially intrusive low-frequency noise - would affect large numbers of residences in and around Gloucester, especially in the Forbesdale, Avon and Thunderbolts residential estates.
- Mine noise would commonly exceed the regulatory limits on winter nights.
- Proposed compensations for residents affected by noise are inadequate.
- Dust from the mine would have serious, long term health and nuisance effects on hundreds of residents.
- Road traffic to and from the mine would be far greater than the existing local traffic, and would put unacceptable pressure on the Shire Council's road maintenance resources.
- The mine is located on a floodplain in the catchment of the Manning River, which supplies drinking water to major towns downstream of approx. 85000 residents.
- The potential impacts of the mine on sub-surface water are not adequately understood.
- The scenic values that the important tourism industry depends on would be seriously degraded.
- The mine would result in the clearing of remnants of dry rainforest, which is recognised as a vunerable ecological community.
- The mine would have impacts on threatened birds and mammals, and would be likely to result in the complete loss of the populations of squirrel gliders and grey-crowned babblers currently in the proposed mine area.
Thank you
Rivers SOS
Object
Rivers SOS
Message
sources from mining and other extractive industries. We have visited the Gloucester region to inspect the potential damage from the Rocky Hill Mine.
- The mine is located too close to the residential areas of Gloucester and will have negative impacts on the town's amenity as well as on individual property values.
- Surrounding rural properties would be made unsaleable.
- Long-established agricultural activities would continue to be displaced.
- Too many aspects of mine operation and management of impacts have been left out of the EIS on the grounds that they would be covered in management plans that would not be developed until after the project is approved.
Denis Wilson
Juen VANHAND
Object
Juen VANHAND
Message
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine Project.
There is one resource that is not able to be replaced in some other form.
WATER
Energy can be made from a wide variety of sources, some less invasive than others.
Water is the MOST VALUABLE resource we have along with AIR QUALITY.
They should never be taken for granted.
The Rocky Hill Coal Mine Project with its location within the Avon Valley floodplain has the potential to compromise both of these elements. The Avon River has flooded 5 times in 4 years, 2 of which were in February this year. Manning Valley's drinking water should never be compromised. We are talking about the risk to 80,000 peoples lives.
The health risks of having an open cut mine within 900 meters of the closest residents of Forbesdale Estate and to the nearby residents of Gloucester are totally unacceptable. Noise pollution, dust, devaluation of assets, loss of tourism dollars are potentially devastating to the residents of the quiet rural community of Gloucester.
Employment diversity for our young people becomes restricted to mining jobs, and all other industries in the area loose their potential apprentices due to the high wages used to bribe people into the mining industry.
I am a resident of the Barrington Valley community, but I work within a 3 km distance from the Rocky Hill Coal mine site. This will impact on my daily life and my health.
My family live in the township of Gloucester and I worry about their health and well-being.
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine Project.
Patricia McCalden
Object
Patricia McCalden
Message
1. The mine is located too close to residential areas in Gloucester.
2. Negative impact on community property values
3. Negative impacts on health due to dust, noise and mental stress
4. No cost benefit analysis of the project had been presented
5. Its location on a flood plain in the catchment for the Manning River which supplies water to Taree and other communities.
6. The potential impacts on sub-surface water are not adequately understood.
7. Potential royalties to the state appear to be overstated.
8. The omission of of many aspects of mine operation and management of impacts until after permission is granted.
9. The potential loss of jobs in the local tourist & farming industries outweighs the small number of mining jobs promised
10. Loss of endangered dry rain forest and of threatened birds and mammals including the grey-crowned babblers and squirrel gliders.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
We will experience excessive noise and dust.
The dust will end up on the roof of our house and shed, flow into the watertanks and then we will be drinking it.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
- Surrounding rural properties would be made unsaleable.
- Long-established agricultural activities would continue to be displaced.
- Too many aspects of mine operation and management of impacts have been left out of the EIS on the grounds that they would be covered in mamagement plans that would not be developed until after the project is approved.
- No cost-benefit analysis of the project has been presented.
- Potential royalties to the State appear to be greatly overestimated.
- The net employment increase for Gloucester residents would be small (only 15 - 30 jobs), which would be outweighed by the negative effects on the Gloucester community.
- Noise from the mine - especially intrusive low-frequency noise - would affect large numbers of residences in and around Gloucester, especially in the Forbesdale, Avon and Thunderbolts residential estates.
- Mine noise would commonly exceed the regulatory limits on winter nights.
- Proposed compensations for residents affected by noise are inadequate.
- Dust from the mine would have health and nuisance effects on hundreds of residents.
- Road traffic to and from the mine would be far greater than the existing local traffic, and would put unacceptable pressure on the Shire Council's road maintenance resources.
- The mine is located on a floodplain in the catchment of the Manning River, which supplies drinking water to major towns downstream.
- The potential impacts of the mine on sub-surface water are not adequately understood.
- The scenic values that the important tourism industry depends on would be seriously degraded.
- The mine would result in the clearing of remnants of dry rainforest, which is recognised as a vunerable ecological community.
- The mine would have impacts on threatened birds and mammals, and would be likely to result in the complete loss of the populations of squirrel gliders and grey-crowned babblers currently in the proposed mine area.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
If The Rocky Hill Project goes ahead GRL must be made to buy the property 124 Jacks Rd as we could not live survive the health impacts of this open cut coal mine.
Kerrie Green
Object
Kerrie Green
Message
- Surrounding rural properties would be made unsaleable.
- Long-established agricultural activities would continue to be displaced.
- Too many aspects of mine operation and management of impacts have been left out of the EIS on the grounds that they would be covered in mamagement plans that would not be developed until after the project is approved.
- No cost-benefit analysis of the project has been presented.
- Potential royalties to the State appear to be greatly overestimated.
- The net employment increase for Gloucester residents would be small (only 15 - 30 jobs), which would be outweighed by the negative effects on the Gloucester community.
- Noise from the mine - especially intrusive low-frequency noise - would affect large numbers of residences in and around Gloucester, especially in the Forbesdale, Avon and Thunderbolts residential estates.
- Mine noise would commonly exceed the regulatory limits on winter nights.
- Proposed compensations for residents affected by noise are inadequate.
- Dust from the mine would have health and nuisance effects on hundreds of residents.
- Road traffic to and from the mine would be far greater than the existing local traffic, and would put unacceptable pressure on the Shire Council's road maintenance resources.
- The mine is located on a floodplain in the catchment of the Manning River, which supplies drinking water to major towns downstream.
- The potential impacts of the mine on sub-surface water are not adequately understood.
- The scenic values that the important tourism industry depends on would be seriously degraded.
- The mine would result in the clearing of remnants of dry rainforest, which is recognised as a vunerable ecological community.
- The mine would have impacts on threatened birds and mammals, and would be likely to result in the complete loss of the populations of squirrel gliders and grey-crowned babblers currently in the proposed mine area.
Kristina Robinson
Object
Kristina Robinson
Message
WARREN GRESHAM
Support
WARREN GRESHAM
Message
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Message
Christopherr Smith
Support
Christopherr Smith
Message
I have read the summary of the Environmental Assessment for the Rocky Hill Project and have visited the site and surrounding area about 6 times in the past 2 years.
The land to be developed as an open cut mine & associated infrastructure is well suited to open cut mining and is not prime agricultural land. The proponent has outlined sound land management and community impact strategies in the EA that mitigate the impacts of the project.
The project has significant and multiple benefits to the local and regional communities in the form of direct and indirect employment and the requirement for services and new infrastructure. I understand that the local council is an a dire financial state and this project will assist council in surviving the current cost/revenue squeeze.
As a father of 3 children approaching adulthood I am acutely aware of the lack of new employment opportunities in the region and the consequences of high youth unemployment and the perception of no future in the area. We need projects like Rocky Hill to generate local jobs.
The perception that NSW is closed for business is starting to be shared by overseas investors who pay a high price for an exploration license only to find that the chances of progressing the project to execution in the current environment are slim to none. This means that the investment will go to Indonesia, Mongolia, Mozambique and India & China where the project approval process supports rather than halts project development.
The benefits of the project clearly outweigh the impacts.I support the Rocky Hill Project and the proponents plans and urge the NSW Dept of Planning and Infrastructure to approve the project so that investment can continue in NSW.