Rocky Hill Coal Mine

This coal mine has devalued our lovely house down Forbesdale Close, and it will also ruin the lovely view we have through our valley. The yellow glow at night also be very irritating and i have no idea why you would like to put a coal mine so close to our lovely town when the coal strip can be found in much more rural areas where you wont affect local towns. I am also sure that you know how many people in gloucester are against this coal mine, and i would like you to consider all the lives that will be effected and their livelihoods ruined if this coal mine continues. You and I both know its wrong so please use your bloody heads and move it somewhere else don't consider it, MOVE it.

I am strongly opposed to this mining development. It is too close to residential areas and there is a strong chance that it will effect peoples health. It will be a highly visible mine that will spoil what is now pristine agricultural land. It is also possible that it could pollute a major river system that supplies water for down stream towns and villages.

I am opposed to the Rocky Hill coal Project for the following reasons;

- 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.
- 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 scenic values that the important tourism industry depends on would be seriously degraded.

I support the development of the Rocky Hill Mine, because it will bring new jobs to the area. I am a mechanical fitter by trade and am keen to apply for a job at the new mine. We have a young family and would like to relocate to the rural area of Gloucester.

I am totally opposed to this mine.
This open cut mine will operate within 5km of town and within 900 metres of residential homes. What more needs to be said.
Plans to expand bring this distance even closer. Not to mention closer to our family home.
10 years ago we moved to Gloucester simply because we liked the healthy environment, particularly the rainfall and river systems. We live on the Avon River and feel this development will make a negative impact on this and subsequent water systems.
One of the options put to my family in order to mitigate the health effects the mine will impose on us would be to keep the doors and windows closed. Five kilometres out of a country town- they cannot be serious. The healthy air and quiet lifestyle is why we moved here.
We will need to test our tank water and replace if compromised- at our own expense. Not to mention replace it with water from an equally compromised town water supply.
Even if the economic benefits to the country, state and town are a fraction of what they state it will be, the short and long term negative impacts on the environment, the culture and the industry of this area far out weigh it.
The noise, dust, vibration, traffic, night time light and visual impacts this mine will impose on our family home and town will require us to move, leaving behind those people unable to.
None of the owners of this mine live here, none of our politically elected members live here, non of the bureaucrats dealing with this mine live here, very few miners will live here, however, ALL residents will carry the emotional, financial, and health burdens this mine will impose on them.
This mine should not go ahead.

I am a resident of Gloucester Shire NSW and am very concerned for the community and future of the town in which I live.
Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL) has lodged an application seeking approval to mine the first part of an area over which they currently hold an exploration licence(EL6523).Approval by the Government will move the area allowed for mining 5kms closer to the town, bringing it well within 5kms of schools, businesses, the hospital and residences. In some areas residential estates are less than 2kms.
Gloucester is picturesque valley, this will change to a mining town with many concerns relating to personal health, children's health, environment, permanent damage to water and soil systems and jeopardising the long term self-sustaining industries that have generated naturally in this community. Residents,businesses,local dairys, properties will loose the quiet life and will also suffer from airbourne coal dust. Coal trains will be noisy, lights will be a problem. transport on roads will increase.
There is no reason why our beautiful Gloucester Vale should be permanently damaged for the small coal resource being sought - and the highly questionable economic benefit touted as flowing to the state and local economies.
Please refuse GRL's Rocky Hill mine proposal and permanently protect Gloucester and closely settled areas.
I have made no reportable political donations.

Yours faithfully,

I oppose this mine because it is too close to Gloucester and while it is believed that the mine is supporting the community with jobs and sponsorship this is a common misconception because the mine is only a temporary boost. Since the mine offers high pay with little qualifications many people leave their jobs to work there, which effects said people once the mine leaves. However, the mine will not just affect local businesses, but also the agricultural industry surrounding the township. The mine requires the mass excavation of land, much of which is agricultural. This causes many farmers to move in order to keep their business running, which seldom happens as they have spent much of their time clearing and perfecting their land and moving makes that all for naught. And yes, the mine may be temporary but by the time all the minerals are dug up the farmers have long sinced been 'forced' to move and have either retired or started rebuilding what they lost.
The mine also has detrimental effects on the environment. It takes land from native animals, who cannot simply be moved as they will be moved into another animals territory. Also, mines leak toxic chemicals into waterways which kills animals or causes them to be sick or weaker.
When the land is finally 'restored' (if you can call it that), the relocated animals are long since dead, the land will also take a long time to fully recover and even then there is a scar.
Lastly, many people feel pressed by the mine to move for the simple fact that they know they will lose their view of the landscape, and that their property will lose value dramatically once the mine is next to them or near them. Also, I have witnessed first hand scare tactics and intimidation being used to get people sell their land.
There are more reasons than these to why I oppose the mine, but these, to me, stand out the most.

I object to the Rocky Hill Coal Project due to:
1. Health Impacts for residents. We live out of town but our communities children will be exposed to the air pollution 5 days a week at school. My children have asthma and will be at greater risk of asthma attacks. This project should not be approved due to the known health impacts of mining operations in such close proximity to a town and residents. The taxes earned would be at the cost of our residents health and would increase the risks of cancer, respiratory issues.
2. Water Quality Reduction and possible contamination. The risk of damaging and reducing the retention capabilities of our water aquifers by dewatering will cause hardship and health risks for our community.
3. Reduced Air Quality.
4.Increased Noise Pollution.
5. Job losses due to reduced tourism and agriculture potential which is unsustainable.

I object to the Rocky Hill Coal Project due to:
1. Health Impacts for residents. We live out of town but our communities children will be exposed to the air pollution 5 days a week at school. My children have asthma and will be at greater risk of asthma attacks. This project should not be approved due to the known health impacts of mining operations in such close proximity to a town and residents. The taxes earned would be at the cost of our residents health and would increase the risks of cancer, respiratory issues.
2. Water Quality Reduction and possible contamination. The risk of damaging and reducing the retention capabilities of our water aquifers by dewatering will cause hardship and health risks for our community.
3. Reduced Air Quality.
4.Increased Noise Pollution.
5. Job losses due to reduced tourism and agriculture potential which is unsustainable.

I object to the Rocky Hill Coal Project due to:
1. Health Impacts for residents. We live out of town but our communities children will be exposed to the air pollution 5 days a week at school. My children have asthma and will be at greater risk of asthma attacks. This project should not be approved due to the known health impacts of mining operations in such close proximity to a town and residents. The taxes earned would be at the cost of our residents health and would increase the risks of cancer, respiratory issues.
2. Water Quality Reduction and possible contamination. The risk of damaging and reducing the retention capabilities of our water aquifers by dewatering will cause hardship and health risks for our community.
3. Reduced Air Quality.
4.Increased Noise Pollution.
5. Job losses due to reduced tourism and agriculture potential which is unsustainable.

See attached PDF

Mr Barry O'Farrell, MP
Premier of NSW
Parliament House
Macquarie Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Deart Sir,

ROCKY HILL CPOAL MINE PROJECT - APPLICATION NO SSD-5156

I am a resident in the Gloucester Shire NSW and am very concerned for the community and future of the town in which I live.

Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL) has lodged an application seeking approval to mine the first part of an area over which they currently hold an exploration licence (EL6523).
Approval by the Government will movethe area allowing mining 5kms closer to the town, bringing it well within 5kms of schools, businesses, the hospital and residences. In some areas residential estates are less than 2 kms.

Gloucester is a picturesque valley, this will change to a mining town with many concerns relating to personal health, children's health, environment, permanent damage to water and soil systems and jeopardising the long term self sustaining industries that have generated naturally in this community. Residents, businesses, local dairy farmers, property owners will loose their quiet life and will also suffer from airbourne coal dust. Coal gtrains will be noisy, lights will be a problem. Transport on roads will increase. Tourists will not want to visit beautiful town.

There is no reason why our beautiful Gloucester Vale should be permantly damaged for the small coal resource being sought - and the highly questionable economioc benefit touted as flowing to the state and local economies.

Please refuse GRL's Rocky Hill mine proposal project permanently Gloucester and closley settled areas.

I have made no reportabe political donations.

Yours faithfully

EIS is inadequate (in some cases almost incredibly so), does not meet the DGRs, and describes a project that will have severe adverse local impacts. It lacks any cost:benefit analysis - an alarming oversight for a project of this complexity and risk profile. It also fails to draw on pertinent research and experience with similar projects in attempting to mitigate its effect on the local community.
Specifically:
Geology - the underlying geology is complex, poorly understood and has been previously considered uneconomic. The proponent's investigation of the resource is inadequate. There is serious uncertainty over the operational or economic viability of the proposed mine. There is a real risk that this mine will cherry pick the most valuable component of any coal resource in an effort to stay viable and subsequently close or move leading to sub-optimal resource use efficiency for this important state owned resource.
Waste rock management - significant acid forming potential with the presence of toxic compounds that are easily mobilised by acid. These problems are currently faced by the nearby Stratford coal mine but are not considered by the proponent.
Visibility - 40m s high waste rock emplacements (visibility barriers) that run for hundreds of metres and are perched on the boundary of town are a case of the "cure being worse than the disease". Not only will the proximity and scale of the mine dwarf our town, these emplacements are of a scale and proximity that dwarf any built feature in Gloucester. There design appears unstable and impossible to revegetate. Any redesign would either increase their impact or reduce their effectiveness as a noise barrier.
Flood plain impacts - large waste emplacements (visibility barriers) and sediment dams will encroach on the floodplain, present an extreme erosion risk (due to specified materials and design characteristic) and are designed to an inadequate flood level.
Water management - water balance models are incomplete and inadequate. No treatment or disposal strategy for mine water contaminated with toxic materials is provided. There is no credible strategy for managing the 39 000 tonnes of salt that will result from the proposal.
Rehabilitation strategy - the rehabilitation strategy is speculative at best and presents extreme risk of adverse and unanticipated outcomes. The suggestion that sustainable landscape can be recreated from unconsolidated waste material is not supported by any analysis.
Health impacts - the EIS completely dismisses the know health impacts of air pollutions associated with open cut coal mines. Given (1) the mine's extremely close proximity to Gloucester and its schools, hospital, aged care facilities and residential areas and (2) the experience of the local community with the Stratford mine, this dismissal is not only churlish but also extremely risky and concerning.
Noise and light pollution - both these will cause significant psychological stress particularly through their impact on sleep but also through the general loss of amenity associated with unnatural noise and light. The proposal for the mine to operate for effectively 24 hours is particularly troubling given the known health impacts of inadequate and disturbed sleep and the fact that this mine is literally perched on the edge of the town. Experience with the nearby Stratford mine clearly demonstrate that (1) acceptable noise from Government and industry perspectives is still intrusive and significantly disturbing to nearby residents (2) noise events that fall outside standards are poorly monitored and complaints are "managed" rather than satisfactorily resolved.
Impacts on existing sustainable industries including agriculture, tourism and light industry. The purchase of agricultural land by mining companies in the local area, notwithstanding the best attempts of the companies to engage with farmers, has led to the loss of farming families. A number of small to medium businesses, including a high profile innovative industry employing 30 mainly young people, have already stated their intention to either close or relocate from Gloucester should this mine go ahead. Tourism is worth more than $30M a year to Gloucester. This tourism is centred on our township and based largely on Gloucester's scenic beauty and rural "charm". A highly visible open cut coal mine is completely incompatible with our key tourism marketing advantage.
Drain on Local Government resources including unacceptable and uncompensated deterioration of local road infrastructure that will lead to road failures, an unsustainable drain on Council resources, and serious safety risks.. Our local roads and infrastructure are already struggling with significant infrastructure maintenance and replacement backlogs identified in recent Council and T-Corp reports. This proposal will dramatically increase the demand on this infrastructure without commensurate contribution for use. The burden, in further deterioration and increased financial cost, will unfairly accrue to local ratepayers.

I support the rocky hill coal project because

- support gloucesters prosperity
-jobs and other spin off industries in the area
-local business will benefit ( which are struggling at moment due to downturn in Gloucester )
-provide an avenue and opportunities for the younger generation in Gloucester, seeing there is no other thriving industries in Gloucester
-Gloucester needs it for growth
- rocky hill project has addressed all concerns on adverse effects

I object to the Rocky Hill mine for the following reasons: 1.
It is too close to town ,schools and hospitals. I have 3 children aged 6 to 14, and the go to school in town.They will be exposed to what I consider (despite Rocky Hills assurances that it will be acceptable levels) UNACCCEPTABLE, levels of coal dust. It is not ok to expose a child to a dangerous substance at whatever level, and I am appalled that the planning department would even consider it. They must have children themselves too!
2. The townspeople will all, for the first time, be exposed to Night light, blasting vibration and noise for over 20 hrs per day. That is over 2500 people. They live in gloucester because it is in a rural , quiet setting, and they like it that way. That will no longer be the case.They will be exposed to more coal dust and diesel particulate,a constant night glow, despite the proposed barriers, noise and a massive increase in traffic. None of which they can control.
3.The increase in traffic, particularly for residents in the R5 areas on the southern end of Gloucester, will be massive, and will do significant damage to the shires roads. Particularly around shift change, the traffic on roads like Jacks Rd, will be a big change and will impact a significant number of families- some good friends of mine included. they have young active children who ride bikes on those roads and they will not be able to let them roam freely if the mine goes ahead.
4.The increase in employment, though good, will be nowhere as good as is claimed and will have serious ramifications for other employers in the district. Our farm used to be able to get workers but now, with mine workers on $100 +, we are unable to find people to work for a normal farm hand wage of under 50K. It mean that the mine is affecting agriculture, engineering and earthmoving industries in town by sucking the workers away. When a downturn in coal occurs, such as has just happened, and 60 jobs are cut, many leave town rather than return to lower paying jobs. Rather than improving employment, it makes it extremely volatile- really good and really bad, which is deadly for a small town.
5.And this is a biggie. Its affect on tourism. While the proposed mine will increase employment in mining, it WILL affect tourism. Gloucester will become a mining town and industrial and not be seen as pristine and country. It will no longer be seen as "what a beautiful place".Our biggest drawcard, is our natural environment and that is going to be seriously impacted by this proposal. We will have more traffic-heavy and light, we will have more noise particularly heavy machinery, we will have lower air quality than we currently enjoy, we will have night time light and noise, and we will have less country view. The views from town, to the east and south, will become industrial with coal mines and gas wells. This , above everything else, will affect tourism numbers, employment in tourism and profitablity.

To whom it may concern. I wish to oppose the 'Rocky Hill Coal Project' on the following grounds. Whilst I'm not a permanent resident of Gloucester, I did spent all of my childhood there and still call it 'home'. I have many family and friends who still reside in the area and I frequently visit the area. My concerns are primarily that the mine is too close to residential areas and will effect individual property values. Gloucester has long been known for agricultural activities and these will continue to be displaced with the introduction of another mine. In addition, noise, dust and traffic will all increase and have a negative impact on the residents. Far too many aspects of the mine operation and management of impacts have been left out of the Environmental Impact Statement. I feel there needs to be further understanding of how the impacts will be managed if the mine were to go ahead.

I understand the concerns of residents and other stakeholder who believe mining may negatively influence their lives. To those who are concerned about mining development, I can assure you that the street mining companies travel toward approval is one way. Mining companies bend over backwards to appease residents' concerns and the government drives this process. The thing that concerned stakeholders should keep in mind is that ultimately, the mining company has destroyed significant value by yielding to the concerns of the community. Any new mining project will provide significant contribution to the local area through employment, royalty payments and community support. Mining has supported me and my family for my whole career. I work in the industry and understand the demands on mining companies to get project approval. I encourage you to support this project to ensure the future prosperity of New South Wales and the Gloucester region in general. I've been a resident of Hunter Valley towns at various stages throughout my career and hope to one day return to bring up my family in a prosperous area. Without development such as this project, I fear I may not be able to do such a thing.

Director, Mining Projects
Development Assessment Systems & Approvals
Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Dear Sir
ROCKY HILL COAL PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SSD-5156
I am writing to oppose Gloucester Resources Ltd's development application for an open cut coal mine. My
reasons follow:
Distance from the mine.
Statement from GRL...Statement from GRL.
"The closest resident to any pit
will be 1.7kms away."
Fact - From the main extraction boundary area are:
*
the Forbesdale Estate, of 35 rural/residential properties, situated 900 to 1800m,
*
the Thunderbolts Estate and Avon View residential estates, to the north, situated 1.8klms to 2.5klms,
*
the rural/residential properties along the Bucketts Way situated 1.8klms to 2.5klms.
This is not one resident but many, who will suffer the noise and dust from this mine. Even coal seam gas
wells and wind farms are legislated to be no closer than 2kms from a residence.
Noise and Health.
This mine is far too close to Gloucester and the Forbesdale Estate. 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.
Further Expansion.
I do not believe that the mine will stay at its proposed size. GRL will expand towards
town and will seek to mine coal on its other two exploration licence areas along the Bucketts Way.
Economics
. Already GRL has acquired 29 properties and the owners have left their land and farming
businesses. I do not accept that GRL's economic assertions, nor its 'compensation' to Gloucester, nor its
royalties to NSW are sufficient reason to ruin the environment and water systems of this valley. I do not
accept that it is reasonable to inflict harm and suffering on people and communities simply for the profit of
a company - or for royalties.
Rehabilitation
is clearly outside GRL's interest and capability. They 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.
GRL's interest is to do the cosmetics and hand back the legacy.
No explanation has been given as to how a coal-dependent Gloucester will be restarted after the mines
close - and at what cost.
Treatment of this Community
. GRL has not been honest with Gloucester. It secretly bought land under
a number of names. Its EIS fails to tell the truth about community opposition and fails to tell the truth
about the methods used to get `willing sellers' of properties. I hope the Assessment Committee will detect
these. GRL refuses to state clearly its intentions regarding projected expansion towards Gloucester and
along the valley. However we do know that GRL does aspire to exploit the coal resource to the maximum
extent. We were fobbed off by Minister MacDonald stating that GRL `was only exploring'. We pin-pointed
where GRL would start mining. MacDonald said `Hose the community down'. We need your help.
There is no state reason to mine this coal and there is no sane reason to damage this valley and
community.
Please use the full extent of the Precautionary Principle. Please defend the notion of fairness and
humanity for people over profit.
Please refuse GRL's application.
I have made no reportable political donations.
Yours faithfully

Dear Sir
Rocky Hill Coal Project, Gloucester

Application No. SSD-5156

Please stop the above project. Refuse Application No SSD-5156

The Coal Project is in a position which will destroy the environment, human life and the landscape.

No matter what is claimed in the EIS the facts are:

1. Two tributaries to the Manning River system namely the Avon & Gloucester Rivers will be put at risk as viable essential aquifers:
(i) Likely disruption to and/or cessation of water flow
(ii) Unavoidable contamination with salts and chemicals from mining operations especially during wet conditions and flooding
(iii) Destruction of river catchment, especially the Avon River.

2. Destruction of topography and essential vegetation.

3. Destruction of productive farmland. Mining coal is a one off economic return. There is nothing to replace it for future use.
Farmland produces in perpetuity.
The Answer: mine coal in places where the land surface is not producing and has no potential to produce.

4. Destruction of human life. The exploration licences should never have been granted by Minister Ian McDonald whose ethics have recently been questioned and who repeatedly assured the community that they were "only exploration licences". Why were they created then? No one is going to explore a resource without the potential of exploiting it.

This whole project is an insult by the State Government, including the present Government, to the people of Gloucester, and a callous disregard for a community in this State.
(i) Exploration licences surround the town to the west, south and east
(ii) Mining will be less than 2 km from the town and apparently regulations permit mining to be as close as 350m from a residence.
(iii) Dust will cover the town, no matter how high "visibility barriers" are constructed. Gloucester is in a high wind area.
(iv) Light will bathe the town at night, accentuated by dust particles.
(v) Diesel fumes will further contaminate the air over the town.
(vi) Infrastructure will not handle a mine of any scale. Roads & Maritime Services have reduced speed limits on The Bucketts Way because in their view the road is inadequate and they have done nothing to improve it. The Bucketts Way won't handle heavy traffic for mine development and ongoing mine maintenance.

The result? Destroyed road surface and lower speed limits - always the R&MA's quick fix.
How then do Gloucester residents commute to the remainder of the State? Or aren't they part of NSW?

5. Destruction of landscape. It is claimed that 50m high by 2km long "visibility barriers" will be constructed with overburden. What area of productive land will these barriers occupy?

Will it be possible to vegetate these "visibility barriers" of clay and rock? What erosion will result from wind and rain?

When State & Federal Governments destroyed the timber and dairy industries the community was assured that tourism would compensate.

Who would come to a town covered in coal dust beside a huge hole in the ground surrounded by 50m high "visibility barriers"?

This project is a short term 20 year one off grab. What happens to this part of NSW after that?
Or is the Gloucester community not part of NSW?

Conclusion:
There is no long term benefit from the proposed Rocky Hill Mine to either the people of Gloucester or the people of NSW, when food producing land is destroyed and essential water supplies are destroyed or at least contaminated.

Look to the future and stop this project.
Yours faithfully
Newman Patmore

Mining around this part of NSW is the way of life. People move to the Hunter/Newcastle region from all around Australia to work within the mines. It is the industry that has seen the area boom.

I, having moved from Victoria 4 years ago, moved for this reason, to work within the coal mines in the Hunter. Now the area has become my home and I support the prospect of new mines for the region.

It provides me with a suitable work life balance. There are not many places where you can have the beach and the vineyards all so close, enabling you to enjoy all aspects of life while pursuing your working endeavours.

By myself and my family moving here we have provided a contribution to the local community, albeit it may be that we are only one family, but each family provides support to the community through buying produce at the local shops and receiving services from local professionals.

The Rocky Hill Project is another avenue for providing jobs to the locals and also further afield. It may provide a `dent' in the landscape for awhile, but from that, a lot more people will want to call the area home like I do.