Rocky Hill Coal Mine

I write in response to the publication of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Rocky Hill Coal Project.

I believe coal mining projects should operate on the basis of need, and it is only the proponents of this mine who need this development. The State of NSW has ample coal resources available elsewhere at less environmentally and socially damaging locations.

The environment at the Rocky Hill location is mostly agricultural land in an area of good rainfall and quite high productivity - a productivity which is sustainable. If the State of NSW had legislation to protect good food-producing land, the land surrounding the town of Gloucester would be a prime area for consideration for in perpetuity protection.

The added sustainable benefits of a close-knit agriculture based community is a further adverse impact should the Rocky Hill project proceed. This community benefits from tourism as an added sustainable 'industry'. Its rivers and streams are a further long-term asset threatened by open-cut mining operations.

On purely economic grounds there is a clear case for the rejection of the proposed Rocky Hill open-cut mine in favour of the continuation and development of the existing sustainable economy of Gloucester and the Shire around it.

How can the powers that be even contemplate going ahead with the Rocky Hill Coal Project? What are we going to say to our children and gandchildren? Think about the destruction of the environment as well as the health issues. It can never be justified to destroy our heritage in this way.

I fully support the mine as it will bring jobs, investment and other benefits to Gloucester. This region will benefit greatly by the opening of the Rocky Hill Coal Project. I want to see jobs being created so that my children have a future.

I oppose the proposed development on the grounds that the mine is simply too close to the town. Given its close proximity to schools/hospital/residential areas, I feel that the development - were it to proceed - would negatively affect the township in terms of dust and noise. I fear the health impacts that this may have on the general population. I am also concerned about the vidual impact that the development may have on the Gloucester landscape and the associated negative impact on the local tourist industry. I am further concerned about the long-term environmental impacts of the mine. Lastly, I question the proposed economic benefits that will accrue locally, given the previously mentioned nagative impact on the local tourism sector and the likelihood that many/most of the jobs created will be taken by people residing outside the local community.

I wish to express my opposition to the Rocky Hill Coal Project on the following grounds:
1.Proximity to residential areas- The mine proposed is only 900ms from the residential area of Forbesdale and less than 5kms from Gloucester Hospital and all Gloucester schools and preschools. These residents will carry an unacceptable burden and will be impacted by dust, noise and loss of visual amenity resulting in risks to their health and also loss of property value.
2.Impacts on health-Health impacts from open cut coal mines are well known and with Gloucester township, including hospital, nursing homes, schools and preschools, falling within 5kms of the Rocky Hill Coal mine project this places the majority of the population at risk.
3.Impact on other industries in the Gloucester Valley- An open cut coal mine within 5kms of Gloucester will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area. Tourism is currently worth over $30M to the Gloucester economy and this will be impacted severely with a resultant loss of jobs. Additionally, mining displaces agriculture and leads to a loss of much needed food-producing land and the farmers who farm the land.
4.Environment- The proposed Rocky Hill mine is on the Avon River flood plain, and in the water catchment area of the Manning River which supplies drinking water to over 80,000 residents and many hundreds of thousands of tourists each year . The Avon River has flooded 5 times in the last 4 yrs, with 2 floods occurring earlier this year, which leads to potential for serious contamination of the water in the catchment area.
5. Cumulative Impacts- If approved, the Rocky Hill Coal Mine will not be operating in isolation in the Gloucester Valley. Yancoal has requested expansion of its mine in the Stratford area and AGL is planning on 330 CSG wells in the Valley- many of those wells are to be placed inside both the Rocky Hill and Stratford mine. 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.

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed GRL Rocky Hill Coal mine in Gloucester Shire.

I operate a very successful business in Sydney and I am a beef producer in Gloucester where my family and friends visit EVERY weekend and holiday period.

I chose to farm in Gloucester because of its unspoiled beauty and country charm and the great promise of being able to get away from it all. This is the place I had intended retiring to. A that time I would be building a more substantial home with all the implied new investments.

This is the place I spend much of my disposable income buying equipment, substantial hiring in of agricultural services and building workers. More than 90% of weekends include visitors from Sydney and elsewhere. Gloucester is a drawcard for me and my family and my many guests.

I was born and raised in GUNNEDAH , a town that has become a mining town . I have watched its the rural integrity erode as it prostitutes its sole to the greedy share holders and forign mining companies. i decided 5 years ago to sever my rural ties as the mines continue to devour every thing i held dear.

i know if this mine goes ahead Gloucester will sour in my eyes I will see it as it is - a mining town with damaged landscape, unhealthy air quality, lost rural character, and lost friendliness as drive-in-drive-outs become ever more obvious. They are always in a hurry and not interested in Gloucester as anything more than the current workplace.

Not only will the Shire character change because of the mining activity over the next 20+ years, people who prefer the peaceful/recreational life and businesses that rely on it - eg tourism - will drift away or close their businesses or employ less people.

I strongly oppose this open cut mine and its future expansions because:
It reduces the quality of life of most people in the community.
It permanently damages the soils and aquifers important to fellow farmers near the mine area.
Up to 500,000 litres of diesel will be burnt each week in the narrow Gloucester Valley to dig up coal that NSW does not need.
Coal dust and diesel emissions are proven carcinogens for which there is now no safe minimum level.
The mine clearly is intended to grow to stage 2 - which makes the mine bigger, closer to residents, last longer and probably become full 24 hour operations - but GRL has restricted itself to only presenting impacts of stage 1.
Current and past MDs have all indicated they will mine closer to Gloucester if viable.
GRL has two adjoining exploration areas that will be mined if this application is successful.
My investment in this farm will not be as personally pleasing. I will have to make alternative plans for my family's future.
It's amazing that GRL can seriously suggest that an overburden dump in plain eyesight to all visitors is a `visibility barrier'.
GRL will create more visibility barriers along the Bucketts Way if they are not stopped now.
In dry times will GRL stop water consumption - or will it be full steam ahead?
GRL's employment numbers are inflated. Yancoal has been unable to achieve GRL's claim.
In their recently published career choices, no Gloucester school leaver chose coal mining or support.
Climate change is real. It consumes massive fossil fuels at the current `stage 1' unviable production rate, and it will release more methane for which it has no solution.
GRL is clearly wrong to state that its employees will spend the greatest part of their income in Gloucester. Most income is committed to non local services and government payments. GRL have inflated their local benefit probably by at least a factor of 4.
I fear what Gloucester will look like and feel like 20 years from now.
GRL have no viable way of `rehabilitating' the mining lands. The `void' cannot be filled with rubble and then miraculously become aquifers.
30% of run of mine coal is waste that will be returned to the pit or dumped with the overburden. This coal, its dusts and toxins, become part of the new geology for leaching and ultimately will enter the water system.
The people who live close to the mine, and the residents of Gloucester, are permanently exposed to all of the adverse impacts of coal as part of their daily lives.
GRL cannot give any assurance regarding train loading times - which may well be in the middle of the night. GRL makes no suggestion of a curfew.
House values for these people have already dropped - making it impossible for them to leave to the same level of accommodation and amenity. Some of them with mortgages, fixed income and no government representation, are trapped.
Gloucester has a bright future without the `help' of GRL. That bright future will be damaged by GRL and potentially it will suffer very long term impairment as businesses that leave are unlikely to return to a Gloucester whose `brand' has changed.
I know of one company employing a significant number of staff that is already considering whether it should stay.
What happens when the coal price drops and GRL's employment figures become unemployment figures?
What happens when GRL fails due to coal price and cannot fully rehabilitate?
How do GRL and AGL settle their differences - should GRL blast within 1km of AGL's wells? Do they decide what's best - or does government have a role to play?
This whole application should never have happened. A caring government has more than enough reasons to refuse this application - and any other anywhere in the Gloucester Shire.
The EIS appears to be biased for a GRL outcome - it should not satisfy the Planning Departments needs.
The EIS should be either refused outright (preferred) or rejected to include the full scale and impacts of mining associated with stage2.

Gloucester needs the new coal mine to be approved. There is NO Employment, the Council is broke and too many young people are moving away to find work. I am one of them. I was born and bred here, yet, have never worked here!!!!! The only people that are objecting this Coal Mine are the ones that have made their money else where and have moved here to 'retire'. Locals can see ALL the ADVANTAGES Rocky Hill will bring to town, ring-ins cannot - and don't want to........ Gloucester needs to move forward. Or the only thing that the township will be is a "Retirement Village"!!

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed GRL Rocky Hill Coal mine in Gloucester Shire.

My husband and I live and work during the week in Sydney and run a beef producing property in Gloucester. We travel to Gloucester every weekend and, as we are in our fifties, intend within the next ten years to move to this area permanently. We are planning to build a substantial home and become active members of this community, which we find absolutely charming. We both have rural roots so appreciate the benefits of living in a country town.

This is the place we spend much of our disposable income, spending considerable amounts at Webb Bros/Norco and other suppliers. We spend a substantial amount on the hiring in of agricultural services and building workers.

At most weekends we entertain visitors from Sydney and elsewhere. Gloucester is a drawcard for my family and my many guests. They visit the town and enjoy the township, horse riding and the beautiful bushwalking that this area offers.

Gloucester will sour in my eyes if this mine is approved. I will see it as it is - a mining town with damaged landscape, unhealthy air quality, lost rural character, and lost friendliness as drive-in-drive-outs become ever more obvious. They are always in a hurry and not interested in Gloucester as anything more than the current workplace. I grew up in a country town which has been ruined by coal mining so have had first hand experience of the destructive nature of coal mining on rural communities.

People like us who prefer the peaceful/recreational life and businesses that rely on it will not be attracted to the area. Many locals will be forced to close their businesses or employ fewer people.

I strongly oppose this open cut mine and its future expansions because:
It reduces the quality of life of most people in the community.
It permanently damages the soils and aquifers important to fellow farmers near the mine area.
Up to 500,000 litres of diesel will be burnt in the narrow Gloucester Valley to dig up coal that NSW does not need.
Coal dust and diesel emissions are proven carcinogens for which there is now no safe minimum level.
The mine clearly is intended to grow to stage 2 - which makes the mine bigger, closer to residents, last longer and probably become full 24 hour operations - but GRL has restricted itself to only presenting impacts of stage 1.
Current and past MDs have all indicated they will mine closer to Gloucester if viable.
GRL has two adjoining exploration areas that will be mined if this application is successful.
My investment in this farm will not be as personally pleasing. I will have to make alternative plans for my family's future.
It's amazing that GRL can seriously suggest that an overburden dump in plain eyesight to all visitors is a `visibility barrier'.
GRL will create more visibility barriers along the Bucketts Way if they are not stopped now.
In dry times will GRL stop water consumption - or will it be full steam ahead?
GRL's employment numbers are inflated. Yancoal has been unable to achieve GRL's claim.
In their recently published career choices, no Gloucester school leaver chose coal mining or support.
Climate change is real. GRL consumes massive fossil fuels at the current `stage 1' unviable production rate, and it will release more methane for which it has no solution.
GRL is clearly wrong to state that its employees will spend the greatest part of their income in Gloucester. Most income is committed to non local services and government payments. GRL have inflated their local benefit probably by at least a factor of 4.
I fear what Gloucester will look like and feel like 20 years from now.
GRL have no viable way of `rehabilitating' the mining lands. The `void' cannot be filled with rubble and then miraculously become aquifers.
30% of run of mine coal is waste that will be returned to the pit or dumped with the overburden. This coal, its dusts and toxins, become part of the new geology for leaching and ultimately will enter the water system.
The people who live close to the mine, and the residents of Gloucester, are permanently exposed to all of the adverse impacts of coal as part of their daily lives.
GRL cannot give any assurance regarding train loading times - which may well be in the middle of the night. GRL makes no suggestion of a curfew.
House values for these people have already dropped - making it impossible for them to leave to the same level of accommodation and amenity. Some of them with mortgages, fixed income and no government representation, are trapped.
Gloucester has a bright future without the `help' of GRL. That bright future will be damaged by GRL and potentially it will suffer very long term impairment as businesses that leave are unlikely to return to a Gloucester whose `brand' has changed.
I know of one company employing a significant number of staff that is already considering whether it should stay.
What happens when the coal price drops and GRL's employment figures become unemployment figures?
What happens when GRL fails due to coal price and cannot fully rehabilitate?
How do GRL and AGL settle their differences - should GRL blast within 1km of AGL's wells? Do they decide what's best - or does government have a role to play?
This whole application should never have happened. A caring government has more than enough reasons to refuse this application - and any other anywhere in the Gloucester Shire.
The EIS appears to be biased for a GRL outcome - it should not satisfy the Planning Department's needs.
The EIS should be either refused outright (preferred) or rejected to include the full scale and impacts of mining associated with stage2 - at the very least.

I object to any new coal mine being established in Gloucester. There should be no coal mining so close to a town where residents, hospitals, nursing homes, schools are. Gloucester is such a beautiful place and I visit my family there on a regular basis. Tourists and visitors will not feel inclined to visit as often if the coal mine proceeds. I know that the noise as well will be heard by everyone in town. Water is precious and the possible contamination if a real worry.

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed GRL Rocky Hill Coal mine in Gloucester Shire.

I am a beef producer in Gloucester, but work in Sydney at present. In the future I want to expand the size of my holdings in this community. My long term plan is to locate permanently to this area.

My wife recently sent a submission to you and I wish to reinforce the points she made. This issue will affect our long term commitment to, and relationship with, this community.

If this mine goes ahead, I will need to reconsider my plans to further invest in this community and area. What is now a beautiful, green, rural community with the sort of soul that has been destroyed in many country towns, would become a mining town with damaged landscape, unhealthy air quality and lost rural character. It would become a town of drive-in-drive-outs who are always in a hurry and not interested in Gloucester as anything more than a workplace.

Not only will the Shire character change because of the mining activity over the next 20+ years, people who prefer the peaceful/recreational life and businesses that rely on it - eg tourism - will drift away or close their businesses or employ fewer people.

I strongly oppose this open cut mine and its future expansions because:
It reduces the quality of life of most people in the community.
It permanently damages the soils and aquifers important to fellow farmers near the mine area.
Up to 500,000 litres of diesel will be burnt each week in the narrow Gloucester Valley to dig up coal that NSW does not need.
Coal dust and diesel emissions are proven carcinogens for which there is now no safe minimum level.
The mine clearly is intended to grow to stage 2 - which makes the mine bigger, closer to residents, last longer and probably become full 24 hour operations - but GRL has restricted itself to only presenting impacts of stage 1.
Current and past MDs have all indicated they will mine closer to Gloucester if viable.
GRL has two adjoining exploration areas that will be mined if this application is successful.
My investment in this farm will not be as personally pleasing. I will have to make alternative plans for my family's future.
It's amazing that GRL can seriously suggest that an overburden dump in plain eyesight to all visitors is a `visibility barrier'.
GRL will create more visibility barriers along the Bucketts Way if they are not stopped now.
In dry times will GRL stop water consumption - or will it be full steam ahead?
GRL's employment numbers are inflated. Yancoal has been unable to achieve GRL's claim.
In their recently published career choices, no Gloucester school leaver chose coal mining or support.
Climate change is real. It consumes massive fossil fuels at the current `stage 1' unviable production rate, and it will release more methane for which it has no solution.
GRL is clearly wrong to state that its employees will spend the greatest part of their income in Gloucester. Most income is committed to non local services and government payments. GRL have inflated their local benefit probably by at least a factor of 4.
I fear what Gloucester will look like and feel like 20 years from now.
GRL have no viable way of `rehabilitating' the mining lands. The `void' cannot be filled with rubble and then miraculously become aquifers.
30% of run of mine coal is waste that will be returned to the pit or dumped with the overburden. This coal, its dusts and toxins, become part of the new geology for leaching and ultimately will enter the water system.
The people who live close to the mine, and the residents of Gloucester, are permanently exposed to all of the adverse impacts of coal as part of their daily lives.
GRL cannot give any assurance regarding train loading times - which may well be in the middle of the night. GRL makes no suggestion of a curfew.
House values for these people have already dropped - making it impossible for them to leave to the same level of accommodation and amenity. Some of them with mortgages, fixed income and no government representation, are trapped.
Gloucester has a bright future without the `help' of GRL. That bright future will be damaged by GRL and potentially it will suffer very long term impairment as businesses that leave are unlikely to return to a Gloucester whose `brand' has changed.
I know of one company employing a significant number of staff that is already considering whether it should stay.
What happens when the coal price drops and GRL's employment figures become unemployment figures?
What happens when GRL fails due to coal price and cannot fully rehabilitate?
How do GRL and AGL settle their differences - should GRL blast within 1km of AGL's wells? Do they decide what's best - or does government have a role to play?
This whole application should never have happened. A caring government has more than enough reasons to refuse this application - and any other anywhere in the Gloucester Shire.
The EIS appears to be biased for a GRL outcome - it should not satisfy the Planning Departments needs.
The EIS should be either refused outright (preferred) or rejected to include the full scale and impacts of mining associated with stage2.

This mine needs to go ahead to keep the town alive

Dear Sir/Madam
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine on these grounds.
I have read most of the GRL EIS and believe it to be a very inferior document and an insult to the people of Gloucester.
From the moment GRL set foot in our valley they have caused harm. The three exploration licences gave them the license to buy up properties. Properties that owners were not wanting to sell, but they sold because they were scared that they would be left being unable to sell their property and therefore living next door to a coal mine. This is intimidation sanctioned by the NSW Government.
I have personally been campaigning against the establishment of this mine for nearly five years. What I have experienced, from both elected Governments of Labor and The Coalition, has left me disillusioned and dismayed. That any Government could even consider approving an open cut coal mine in the Gloucester Valley is astounding. Even the miners from the Stratford mine do not think this mine should be approved.
The EIS shows a complete contempt of the community by its obvious flaws. They are listed below.
Flawed and Impossible Designs of critical mine infrastructure.
· Visibility barriers that will not be possible to construct given the present design criteria.
· Implausible conceptual engineering designs of rail load out and transport facilities, barriers and landforms which are simply too costly to build if the mine is to maintain viability
· Conceptual final landform design that is impossible to complete due to substantial material shortage
Lack of Financial Viability and the impact of failure or long term closure.
· Viability of the industry is dependent on world coal prices
· The risk to the future of the town due to its dependence on one industry at the expense of damage to other already viable industries in the area
The use of manipulated or inappropriate data to mask deficiencies or to highlight benefits.
· Meteorological data from remote locations and mathematical averaging to distort results
· Use of incorrect base data in economic models to increase economic benefits
· Use of multipliers that distort the economic benefit to the community, State and nation
Negative impacts on health, both physical and psychological.
· Damaging noise emissions from the mine and operations
· Excessive particulate emissions from the mine and operations. WHO classify PM10 & PM2.5 as carcinogenic.
· Health impacts from diesel emissions. WHO classify diesel emissions as carcinogenic.
· No measuring will be undertaken for low frequency noise
· Loss of place and identity for many residents of Gloucester
· The mine has and will continue to cause psychological distress
Negative impacts on the local, State and National economies.
· Economic loss from the impact on tourism, agriculture and other industries
· Economic cost of damage to local roads which will have to be paid for by the
community
· Economic cost of damage to regional roads which will have to be paid for by the State
· Economic cost of health impacts on the community
Impact on the visual and cultural heritage of the Gloucester Valley.
· The mine will create a visual eyesore in the Avon Valley
· The mine will dramatically change the visual amenity of the Gloucester Valley
· Rehabilitation is impossible to achieve with the stated plans, due to lack of overburden
· Close proximity to residential areas and the town
· Loss of the unique character of Gloucester
· Loss of the clean, green image which symbolises the area
· The mine will be partially constructed on the flood plain of the Avon Valley
Unsubstantiated claims.
· EIS which is full of vague plans which GRL say will be implemented after approval
· The arguments for the impacts on ground and surface water are unsubstantiated
· The arguments for non indigenous heritage lack credibility
Lack of indigenous consultation.
· Consultation with the local aboriginal community elders was non existent
Lack of comprehensive response to specific Director Generals Requirements.
· In particular the cumulative impact with AGL who are drilling and fracking coal seam gas wells on one side of the Avon River while less than 500m away GRL intend to be blasting 190m below the level of the river
· In particular the cumulative impact with the Yancoal owned Stratford mine if approval is granted for its northerly expansion currently before the Department
Community outrage.
· 85% of the residents of Gloucester do not want the mine, even GRL's own community survey showed 80.7% do not want the mine
· Gloucester Shire Council have unanimously resolved to oppose the mine
· GRL do not have a Social License to mine in the Gloucester Shire
· The mine is in Zone E3, scenic protection zone, of the LEP
· GRL abused the terms of their exploration licences by acquiring properties for agriculture and forestry
· The mine will only benefit GRL and its shareholders. There is only a cumulative negative impact on the local community
GRL have brought nothing but negative impacts to the community and the mine has not even been approved. Their only arguments for their existence are money and jobs and they are being challenged successfully on those points.
The Rocky Hill Mine project is small on Hunter Valley standards but it is large when compared with the area of the town. It is a completely unsuitable industry for this heritage valley. If GRL get approval for this mine then the whole valley is at risk. GRL are already waiting for approval to explore in Stage two, just north of the present proposal and closer to the town. The Rocky Hill mine is their foot in the door and their justification for further extensions.
I strongly advise that the Department of Planning reject this mine. Dianne Montague

I oppose this mine.
It will result in a net loss of jobs to our community due to negative impacts on agriculture, tourism and related services and businesses. A big driver of our local economy is movement into our community of families and retirees wanting a rural life. These people have contributed to building and trades businesses, and they invest heavily in locally owned retail and trade businesses. Just having the mine as a proposal has had a servere downward effect on the amount of investment coming into Gloucester. Some local businesses expect to lose a lot of their trade as visitor numbers drop. At least one thriving local business which recently expanded, has stated they will have to close down if the mine is approved. Very few of the mine jobs would go to locals - unemployment in GLoucester is so low that many farms and some manufacturing businesses actually have trouble finding employees. Our personal experience of building in Gloucester was that there was a shortage of skilled tradespeople. A new mine would not mean employment for the few unemployed people here, who are unlikely to have the skills required anyway. THe mine is more likely to draw away skilled tradespeople from jobs and businesses that are sustainable and actually add to our community and economy. More information on the negative economic impacts that Rocky Hill Mine would wreak on our community can be found through:
http://www.ecolarge.com/
http://www.tai.org.au/node/1941

The proxiity to our town, including schools, preschools and hospital, plus many places of work and our leisure facilities means the health risks due to air pollution, noise pollution and vibration are unacceptable. There are many detailed studies on the effect of open cut coal mines on health of people nearby, for example:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/airquality/report/output/index
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2813%2970279-1/abstract

The dollar cost of health impacts must be considered. Even if the DPI chooses to ignore the human cost of damaged health, it should consider the dollar cost to the taxpayer and the health system. It is absurd that while other government departments are issuing health warnings about being near coal mining activity, the DPI is even considering a coal mine that poses so overt a risk. There is clear proof of risk of harm and for the DPI to ignore that is surely grounds for future class actions on the basis of negligence in the planning process.

On a personal note, my children are on track to attend Gloucester High School. What kind of education can they expect to get with low and high level industrial noise nearby, with blasting 4 times a week? Research is available indicating the negative impact nearby noise has on cognition, learning and memory. It is unthinkable to disadvantage the current and future children of Gloucester just so that an 81% foreign-owned company can make a short-term profit. THe longterm cost in lost productivity and unmet potential in our children is too high. The NSW Dept of Health says during blasting, we shoudl get inside and close doors, windows and vents. How can teachers implement this in a school setting? GRL'S EIS says blasting will be 4 times a week; maybe more. How will schools be warned? It is unfair that our schools would have to work around a private company's schedule.

We know that vibration from mining can have an effect on structural integrity of buildings. Even if the DPI does not count the cost to individual home owners of repairing this kind of damage, there are many government buidlings which will be affected. The cost of investigating these kinds of problems and rectifying them will be substantial.

The purchase of farming land and the 'gagging' of those selling it, has meant that many farming families and their employees have been displaced and has distorted the figures in terms of the extent that agriculture contributes to the nature of our town and its economy. Gloucester is ideally located climatically and in proximity to major towns to be a food bowl. This potential would be irrereparably damaged if the mine is approved. With food security becoming a growing concern, the future food demand of NSW relies on the protection of farming land. Any quality of soil can be improved upon, until mining causes excessive levels of heavy metals to make it unviable as a food producing area. This area should be developed as a horticultural and agricultural zone, that will continue providing long-term jobs for us and our children, and food for NSW.
This mine will cost us long-term jobs, it will cost us our health, our children's education, and the very nature of our town. It will drive out diverse businesses and when it closes, as it will due to downward international pressure and the rise of renewables, we will have little left, as a community and an economy.

The Gloucester valley is very proud of the things we're achieving GRL would help to build a stronger community with job growth within an innovative mining industry, GRL bring world-leading safety and new practices to reduce our impact on the environment. GRL would bring much need employment to the Gloucester valley. I am a diversely experienced geologist with practical skills honed in all phases of coal projects across eastern Australia, currently I FIFO all across Australia it would be a great opportunity for local Geologist to work closer to there families. I currently have 3 daughters working towards a career in Mining Megan studying Geoscience, Alana Environmental Science. My youngest would like to study mining engineering. It would be very rewarding for myself to see them remain connected to the community in which they grown up within. The Gloucester Valley as a whole needs sustainable network of young intelligent people to remain in the community.

GRL would bring much need employment to the Gloucester valley I am a current student at the University of Newcastle. I would like remain connected to the community in which I have grown up in. The Gloucester Valley as a whole needs sustainable network of young intelligent people to remain in the community.

GRL would bring much need employment to the Gloucester valley I would like remain connected to the community in which I have grown up in. The Gloucester Valley as a whole needs sustainable network of young intelligent people to remain in the community.

GRl will bring much needed growth and development not only to the Gloucester valley but the future employment of young hard working Australians.

This submission meets all requirements, and I support this venture.

I support primary industry with the controls outlined Environmental Approvals as is the norm in NSW. Whether it is the small coal mine named Rocky Hill Project or the AGL coal seam gas in the region. Both of these business's will employ Gloucester residents and external people based on the existing trend of the current mining operations.
NSW needs industry to provide employment for the citizens of the state and revenue for the State Government via coal royalties. The local community will benefit with ongoing employment for the local small business'.

I do not agree with the mining of river flats, and from my observation of the proposed mining area this has been managed.

The two shift mining processing operations reflects the respect the operation has for the proximity to the community from a noise perspective.

I hope the project is approved and the operator meets the regulatory conditions, which will demomstrate the process of the approval. Though I think there is a large bias against new developments with conditions being made more onerus on every new project.

Thank you
Tony James

I support the Rocky Hill Mine Project for the following reasons.
Firstly, Glouster is a town in desperate need of jobs. It is unable to survive on the small amount of tourism and local diaries. If the mine is not granted, the town's population will continue to dwindle as local families seek employment elsewhere. Not only will the Rocky Hill Mine provide direct jobs to the community, but it will also help create the demand for other businesses to start up in order to cater for the growing needs of the community. The Rocky Hill mine will also provide education opportunities, trades and skills training and jobs which will encourage youth to stay in the local area.
Secondly, I believe that the planned mine will be a godsend to Gloucester's economy. It will undoubtedly increase the property value (like mining has in Mackay, Singleton and Townsville to mention a few). The presence of the mine would result in an increase in rates income to the Council. In addition the mine is likely to improve and upgrade many of the existing roads, intersections and bridges. All of these reasons will benefit the community well into the future.
Finally, without development there is no sustainable or long-term future for Gloucester. I am aware there are many local people that oppose the mine; however there are also many supporters of the mine. It will not be visible so therefore will not impact tourism. Mining and agriculture can readily co-exist; the Hunter Valley is a perfect example of this. The impacts of the mine should be assessed based on science and not unfounded information exaggerated by a minority. The science shows that there will be minimal environmental impact and that the positive socio-economic outcomes far outweigh any negatives.
I believe that the planned mine is in the best interest for Glouster.