Rocky Hill Coal Mine

I strongly object to the proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project Application No. SSD-5156.

The true cost of mining coal far outweighs any perceived benefits. The people of the Gloucester Region do not want or need Yancoal to exploit their country at the expense of their health and wellbeing.
The immediacy of this proposed mine to current and potential homes, with dust, diesel fumes, vibration, light pollution, traffic, noise ... it is simply wrong.

It is also simply wrong to open a new coal mine. The impact of burning fossil fuels is far too apparent already. 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already dangerously high and we have an uncertain future of accelerating climate change.

I submit that a responsible Planning Authority could not, in all good faith, approve a proposal that demonstratably is not in the public interest.

Rocky Hill Coal Project should be rejected as its impact is far too great.

NSW Government - Planning and Infrastructure

I am writing to express my support for the Rocky Hill Coal Project. I have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and believe that the study is an accurate representation of the project and one that has considered potential environmental, social and economic impacts. It is reassuring to note that in the tightening economic climate, mining companies such as Gloucester Resources Limited are willing and able to invest in local communities and provide employment opportunities where many other operators in the region are struggling.

I believe that the project offers a balanced approach to the environment, economic security to the township and employment that builds and maintains communities and I welcome the approval of this project.

Dear Sir,

I object to the Rocky Hill Coal Project. I do not believe that the EIS sufficiently addresses the unique problems that will be experienced in the Gloucester district some of which are listed below:

1. Environmentally. I believe that GRL and the NSW Government will be guilty of environmental vandalism if the mine is allowed to proceed. At a time when we should be looking to renewable energy rather than fossil fuels why is the NSW Government allowing new mines to be developed?

Several experts have advised that Gloucester is located in a very unique geological basin which does not
lend itself to coal mining activities. I understand that if the land
is mined there is a great potential for environmental damage to the structure of the basin, the aquifers and our pristine rivers in particular Waukivory Creek and Avon River which cannot be reversed.

I believe GRL is probably only an entrepreneurial company that organises the approvals and then on sells the mining rights, etc. to another company. As over 87% of coal mines in Australia are owned by foreign investment it is most likely that this mine will also end up being owned by a foreign
company with no concerns for our land or our community. When the coal is gone so will be the mining company leaving Gloucester with a huge environmental disaster.

In advertisements GRL states the mine will employ local people. How can it make this statement if it will not be the company that will be actually mining the land. We are hearing in the media now of foreign owned coal mines bringing in their own labour. Is there any requirement that the company has to employ local people?


2. Financially. Gloucester is situated in a very pristine location and depends on a thriving tourism industry which has been developed over many years. Our main street is dotted with coffee shops and many tourists break their trip along The Bucketts Way and enjoy a coffee and a walk up and down the main street.

It won't be quite as attractive when the southerly winds blow the coal dust over the town! The EIS states there will be "visibility barriers". What will happen to them at the end of the Coal Project - Nothing will grow on rocks and clay that has been dug up, possibly with toxic chemical pollution as well.

With a mine site planned so close to Gloucester, particularly at the entrance to the town for people coming via the Pacific Highway and Bucketts Way the mine will certainly detract from the beauty of the area, not to mention the dust and noise.


3. Health. The mine is located too close to several residences. Are not individuals living on farms valued as highly as those living in a township?

I know personally of a young couple with 2 small children running a dairy farm that will have mine activities happening 800m from their home.

Adults in coal mining communities have been found to have higher rates of lung cancer and heart disease, hypertension, kidney disease, stroke & asthma. Children and babies in coal mining communities have been found to have increased respiratory problems including wheezing and coughing, more absent days from school due to illness, a high prevalence of birth defects and risks of obesity, diabetes and heart disease as they grow up.

4. Reduced Property Values. A considerable number of residents have moved to this area on the southern side of Gloucester before the Rocky Hill Coal Project prior to 2006 when the first exploration licences were grant and have invested much of their life savings in new retirement homes or farming properties only to discover that their properties are now unsaleable.

Now that the location of the Rocky Hill Coal Project is known no-one in their right mind would want to live on that side of town, rendering their properties almost worthless and resulting in a very stressful and reduced quality of life for these residents.

Is the government prepared to offer compensation to these residents who have unknowingly invested their savings in properties that will become worthless through no fault of their own? Compensation for those affected financially or through coal related health issues is not dealt with in the EIS. Many retirees cannot wait 20 years or so till the end of the Project to see if the value of their homes go up again.

As I said above if the Government allows this mine to go ahead it will be committing environmental vandalism by allowing productive farming land to be degraded for a short term financial gain and putting the health and wellbeing of the community at an unacceptable risk from air and water pollution.

Even if the Government is not concerned about the well being of the Gloucester residents a lot further scientific and geological investigation (which is not covered sufficiently in the EIS) needs to be carried out as to the suitability of the Gloucester basin for this type of mining activity and the possibility of irreversible damage to our aquifers which will affect not only Gloucester but the Greater Taree district as the water from the Avon River will find its way via the Gloucester River into the Manning River providing drinking water to over 50,000 people.

Yours faithfully,
Shirley Patmore

I support the Rocky Hill Coal Mine Project for reasons that include the following
* The Rocky Hill Mine will create both direct and indirect job opportunities for people in Gloucester, an area where minimal employment prospects typically exist. Without further progression and continued development, families and youth with continue to leave the area in search of job opportunities further perpetuating the existing issue of an ageing community. Data also shows new families of working age with children are not relocating the area and the lack of opportunities is a key reason for this.

* The Rocky Hill Coal Project is targeting 75% local employment and will expand on the limited vocational prospects currently available in Gloucester through providing opportunities such as tertiary education, trades and technical training.

* The local mining activity contributes greatly to the survival of the town, particularly following the demise of other locals industries such as timber. Without industry the local businesses will have nothing or no one to support and the community is will become unsustainable. Existing services such as schools will inevitably be affected as a result of reduced demand and subsequently the town will have even less retention or attraction for young families. Rocky Hill development will help Gloucester have a long-term future.

* In addition to providing direct employment, the expansion of industry will provide a greater need for service industries and suppliers that will also provide for the existing population's needs. Direct and indirect financial injection into the local community through wages could reach $18.5 million per year.

* Council should support the development as it will assist in improve their poor economic position, with projected losses in the next financial year being staved off by rates increases and a reduction in council services. The mine will also lead to improved roads and replacement of the recently closed bridge.

* Tourism, although an important aspect of the community is only part of the solution for Gloucester. Businesses are closing, local motels only source a small amount of their revenue from the tourist trade, and the number of B&Bs has decreased despite claims that tourism is booming. Tourism will continue to be an important part of the Gloucester region, but will likely benefit indirectly from the planned development. Investment in the town will mean more and improved services and facilities that tourists will also use. It is proven that mining and tourism can co-exist in places like the Hunter Valley, with positive outcomes and growth for the community.
* There is a low risk of adverse environmental outcomes but clearly defined positive economic and social benefits for the local and regional communities aswell as the State in general.

* The NSW economy relies on continued growth of industry and government needs to ensure that NSW remains an attractive place for investment. Projects such as Rocky Hill that are scientifically, economically and socially robust and need to be supported by government and not adversely influenced by a vocal minority with a certain agenda.

My objections to the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine are on the grounds of adverse affects on environment, water, and agricultural productivity.
Like most other beef cattle producers in this area of poor winter pasture growth, I rely on hay to maintain my herd through the cold dry months. So far I have been able to source most of this hay locally, from the very river flats and other productive areas to be destroyed by the proposed mine.
Having to import hay from other areas will push my costs to breaking point.

I object to the mine becasue it is too close to town.

There will be significantly increased noise, dust, light from the 24 hour mining, social disharmony, environmental disturbance including increased waste, salt and processes that effect our local threatened species. There will also be increased pressure on our essential services such as housing and emergency and voluteer services.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the opportunity to commnet on the above Project. I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine Project for a number of reasons:-

Proximity - The mine boundary will be situated 900metres from Forbesdale Residential Estate of 35 families.

Noise - 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 itself.

Health - negative health impacts, which can result in serious illnesses, from the dust from open cut coal mines are well documented. 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. This would not be tolerated near Sydney.

Impact on Tourism - Visitors come to Gloucester to experience the peaceful, country lifestyle. I manage a tourism accommodation business the the Barrington River Valley and I fear for the future of this industry and the business I manage. I employ ( to varying degress) over 10 people each year who carry out various takss associated with the business.

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.

Water - The location of the proposed Rocky Hill mine is on the Avon River floodplain, and is 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 and agricultural land in the catchment.

Cumulative Impacts - do not appear to have been addressed.

I have not made a reportable political donation.

Submission opposing the Development Application SSD-5156

As a MBA-qualified, former regional economic development board manager for local government, accredited to the 1991 G7 London Economic Summit, 2002 CHOGM and commentator for 2007 APEC, I am only qualified to comment on the economics aspects of the Rocky Hill coal mining application.


1. GLOBAL COAL MARKET - DEMAND

1.a. To quote "The Hindu" newspaper from 26th October, 2013.

"A prolonged oversupply situation in global coal markets has led to Newcastle benchmark prices of the dry fuel crashing by 13.1 per cent to $81.45 a tonne in 2013.

This is below their five-year average of $95.22/tonne. Prices are now expected to increase in the near-term as production cuts by key miners begin to take effect.

Newcastle coal prices, after hitting this year low of $76.45/tonne on July 10, have risen 6.5 per cent since then. Despite the increase, most producers lament that margins have been hurt by rising input costs, motivating them to slash output to constrict supply.

Newcastle benchmark coal prices had peaked at $139.05/tonne on January 10, 2011, but are now down 41.4 per cent from that record level.

Nevertheless, any upward movement in prices is likely to be limited. Coupled with concerns over slowing import demand from China, reduced imports by Indian buyers who have been keen to renegotiate contracts with key supplier Indonesia following a 17 per cent decline in the rupee during the year, continue to exert pressure on coal."

... One major worry for global coal producers has been the shift toward cleaner fuel sources in China, the world's largest importer. The Communist nation has been rapidly establishing hydro-power generation capacities, as well as gas-fired thermal plants, as it tries to mitigate high air pollution levels.

... While other producers opted to go slow on their coal projects, Australian miners were ramping up output to take advantage of the fall in the Australian dollar versus the US dollar. While the cost of shipments from Newcastle fell by 13.3 per cent in US dollar terms this year, prices have only been eroded by 5.8 per cent in Australian dollar terms.

This has helped boost Australian producers' revenues and given them an incentive to increase supply. Australia is the world's second-largest coal exporter."


1.b. UNPROFITABLE MINE

I consider the above article in The Hindu to be a true and accurate assessment of the global coal industry, both recently and into the future.

In my view, Australia, and NSW in particular, should only be approving new coal projects with a guarantee of success of operating in a global market with falling international demand.

The Rocky Hill mine does not have the margin of safety to operate a profitable mine with considerably less margins, given the falling (and unsustainable) Newcastle coal price.



2. ECONOMIC DATA FROM G.R.I.P and KEY INSIGHTS


2.a. The Rocky Hill Coal Mine DA is based on highly questionable operating figures, and from what I can see is a NET LOSS enterprise.

I concur with GRIP'S statement that the net loss to the Gloucester economy, is in the region of (negative) $288.353 million.

I agree with GRIP's assessment that Key Insights have committed an error approaching $366 million in calculating benefits to State and Federal Finances.

Given the mine's unlikely chance of operating at a profit with falling coal spot prices, the company tax payable would be $ zero, and not the $275 million forecast by Key Insights.

The reality of the nearby Stratford Mine (Yancoal) demonstrates the Key Insights figures of the breakup of employees are unreliable. Indeed, GRIP's estimated figure of $14.56 million over 14 years is much closer to reality than Key Insight's optimistic $253.66 million

It does appear that Key Insights has used inflated figures for local expenditure. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates a potential local spend of only $25,412 per average employee - a $90,000 discrepancy compared to the Key Insight analysis.

I wholeheartedly support GRIP's observation that Key Insights has omitted mention of the negative impacts in both the EIS and the SCSG "Economic Issues Document".

GRIP's is correct to note the $461,000 economic cost to the local Gloucester beef cattle sector annually, $6.454 million over the operational life of the mine.
This would potentially result in a net loss of $8.9895 million to the local Gloucester economy derived from the beef cattle sector.


2.b. EFFECTS ON THE TOURISM INDUSTRY

People do not visit a coal mine or a gas field.

The impacts to the Gloucester Valley tourism industry are even worse than the cattle industry. The flow-on effects of the negative growth to the tourism industry would be felt, not only in the Gloucester and Barrington areas, but it will also impact the visitor numbers to the Hunter Valley and the Manning Valley.

I agree with GRIP's assessment of 241 persons employed in the tourism sector are at risk, with a total loss of at least 27 fulltime jobs in Gloucester's tourism enterprises alone.

A potential loss of $283.51 million to the local economy is feasible considering the multiplier effects of the loss of amenity.

There will be negative flow-on multiplier effects onto the Manning and Hunter Valley's tourism sectors, with the whole of the Buckett's Way affected.

Manning Valley tourism provides a $163 million injection into the local economy (Source: Tourism Research Australia figure).

Tourism is a key economic driver for the Hunter region, worth approximately $1.4 billion in 2003 (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics).

Tourism operators will experience an immediate drop in income if the mine is approved, even before the mine starts operation. Many of these small businesses operate at tight margins, and all businesses will be at severe risk, with the flow-on effect felt across the retail and other sectors.

The whole Hunter and Manning Valley's tourism strategy has been built around 'sustainable' tourism in wine and food. Approval of this mine will undo years of hard work and millions of dollars in investment building a tourism industry.


2.c. EFFECTS ON THE TOWNSHIP OF GLOUCESTER.

The proposed mine will operate within earshot of the town. The DA proposal, coupled with the possibility of AGL's hydraulic facturing within 300m of residences, has been extraordinarily detrimental to the lives of the rural residents of Gloucester.

Ancedotal evidence from real estate agents suggest that real estate prices have plummeted by 30% - and that's if they can they can be sold.

"Rural Res" was a key growth area in Gloucester Council's approvals. According to councillors, since the mine's DA has been flagged, Rural Res applications has been in decline, in fact negative growth.

One SME employing 27 local persons manufacturing kitchens has stated that he will leave the town of the mine is approved. There is further ancedotal evidence that people who moved to Gloucester expecting a rural lifestyle have already left, or are trying to leave town.

As a Buckett's Way resident I have personally experienced the effects of the deteriorating road with an increase in mining trucks, markedly increased traffic noise and potholes.



3. POLITICAL DONATIONS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.

The author of this submission has never made a donation to any political party.



4. SUMMARY.


The economic benefits to the local area have been exaggerated in the DA.

The DA does not include any consideration to the negative consequences of the mine.

Rocly Hill Mine will negatively impact other sustainable and established industries in the immediate area, and the neighbouring valleys, especially tourism and cattle.

The mine is a net loss industry with little chance of profitability in a declining world coal market, and has every chance of liability to State and Federal Finances.

The mine is too close to Gloucester township and impacts on the amenity of the town and the lives of the residents.

It is my professional opinion that the Rocky Hill coal mine, Development Application SSD-5156, should not be approved.

Please find submission attached.

28/10/2013


Director, Mining Projects
Development Assessment Systems and Approvals
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sir,

ROCKY HILL COAL PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SSD-5156.

I am writing to oppose the Gloucester Resources Ltd's (GRL) development application for an open cut coal mine within the Gloucester valley. My reasons are as follows:

1. The mine is located too close to the residential areas of Gloucester and will have negative impacts on quality of life, individual property values and the scenic value of the town.

2. Surrounding rural properties would be made unsaleable.

3. Long-established agricultural activities would continue to be displaced. I work on the property identified in the Environmental Impact Statement as receptor 56A. The Rocky Hill mine threatens the future of this farm and therefore my job. The inconvenience of finding new work and relocating my young family is worrying.

4. 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.

5. Dust from the mine would have health and nuisance effects on hundreds of residents. I have a young child and do not want her subject to blasting emissions and coal dust during her early school years.
6. 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.

7. The mine is located on a floodplain in the catchment of the Manning River, which supplies drinking water to major towns downstream.

8. The potential impacts of the mine on sub-surface water are not adequately understood.

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


Yours Sincerely,

I strongly oppose this development.
I have lived continuously in Gloucester since January, 1978. Before then, I was a frequent visitor.
The proposed development by Gloucester Resources Limited is located within an area zoned for environmental conservation purposes, the proposed mine area is not (as its name implies) sited on a rocky hill. It is in fact on slightly undulating farmland that extends onto the floodplain of the Avon River. No mine should ever extend onto a floodplain.

Mining companies cannot be trusted e.g. Mining for coal began at Stratford in 1995 with a 'boutique' mine with a short life span. It has expanded and will continue to expand whilst ever coal exists in the ground. Then in 2003, at Duralie, another mine commenced and it seeks expansion. Gloucester Resources Limited, GRL, has the option to extend north along the Avon valley which will bring it even closer to Gloucester. It has two other exploration licence areas along the Bucketts Way.

GRL states "The closest resident to any pit will be 1.7kms away." Any future expansion will clearly breach this. GRL already is aware that the Forbesdale Estate has 35 residences and rural properties situated from 900m to 1800m from proposed development. Thunderbolts Estate and Bucketts Way residents are at similar distances or slightly further away. Even coal seam gas wells and wind farms are legislated to be no closer than 2kms from a residence. GRL has selected 1.7 km to exclude these people which a logical person would conclude that GRL cares little about the health and welfare of Gloucester residents as chooses a distance that conveniently excludes people that are affected. 2km appears to be the government's acceptable distance, I do not accept a 2km minimum as being safe.

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.

The EIS covers bushfire without any reference to how it will combat fire or if they will rely on RFS or Fire and Rescue to extinguish fire. Will GRL train all their employees? Will any outside agency need to have full or partial induction before entering the site to address fire?
There is no comment in relation to spontaneous combustion in coal or spoil heaps, which are conveniently labelled visibility barriers. Spontaneous combustion is a real problem in piles that contain carbonaceous material. GRL are silent on this real risk. I believe that the spoil heaps will be too steep to allow compaction and secondly that there is insufficient material, e.g. clay, to provide adequate cover in order to mitigate risk. Will GRL have their own fire brigade or will it rely on Gloucester's resources and what will be the priority of an incident occurring on GRL to one occurring in the Gloucester community. The Avon stops flowing during very dry times and no consideration was given as to the source of water for fire control.

Rehabilitation is clearly outside GRL's interest and capability. They will permanently damage the geology and its water systems. You just cannot dig a huge hole in the ground, remove all the material and then put most back in a completely disordered state and expect a soil profile to instantly form. It will take hundreds of years to reorder which is clearly outside the lifespan of Gloucester residents. GRL 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. This material has the potential to be washed and/or blown into the river system.
GRL cannot reshape the landscape as they claim as there will be a significant shortfall in available material. Most will have been exported as coal. Again due to shortage of water in dry times, re-vegetation will be extremely difficult. It is my opinion that trees will not survive on coal spoil heaps will grasses and other shrubs can provided irrigation is possible. There is no discussion of consequences of GRL failing to meet community standards or even their own claims.

The possible health impacts will involve physical damage to the cardiovascular system, respiratory system, brain, liver and kidneys. Additionally individual mental health damage, from psychosocial stresses, noise and sleep disruption. The intrusion of GRL even in its exploration stage has caused enduring psychological stress particularly for those residents in the direct path of the mine. There has been no discussion about the psychological stress of people who know about the adverse effects of coal mining and have friends and relatives living close to the mine. I find it stressful to know that a mine will be very close to a beautiful town of Gloucester and that it will cause undesirable changes to the town.
This damage involves both mortality, deaths and morbidity,which includes both disease and disability. These are both acute episodes of illness e.g. asthma and cardiac arrhythmias and chronic damage e.g. chronic obstructive airways disease (COAD) and strokes from cerebral arteriosclerosis, which involve damage accumulating over time.
Open Cut Coal Mining results in health damage in a number of ways:-Dust causes multiple types of health damage both from the different sizes of particle and the different chemical contents of those particles. Dust is produced both from overburden and coal in extraction, processing, transportation and rehabilitation.
Mechanical processes tend to result in coarse, PM 10 or 10 microns, and very coarse sized particles PM 50. These cause amenity problems such as depositing coal dust on your roof accelerating rusting through the sulphur content and coating your washing line. Coarse particles get trapped in the nose and large bronchi and can exacerbate bronchitis, COAD and irritate the eyes.
Incendiary processes such as working diesel machinery, locomotives and blasting result in fine PM2.5 and ultra fine PM 0.1 particles. These fine particles can get into the lung tissue, between the alveolar cells, like bacteria. The particles set up inflammatory reactions, which release chemicals into the blood supply, which narrows fine blood vessels. This causes strokes, heart attacks, diabetes and reduces the birth weight of babies. Ultra fine particles, like viruses, get inside cells where they can damage genes and lead to cancers and mutations. Toxic gases such as sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon monoxide are also produced.
PM 2.5 and PM0.1 particles are like cigarettes, there is no absolutely safe level and the higher the dose the higher is the risk. If you live near a mine on average your life expectancy is reduced by nine months. The very young, the elderly, the chronically sick and the socially disadvantaged are at greatest risk.
There are no mandatory maximum levels for diesel exhaust emissions from off-road machines.
They use about a litre of diesel for each ton of coal produced i.e. 2million litres+/yr. Diesel exhaust fumes are a Grade 1 carcinogen. The federal senate enquiry into air quality noted with alarm there are no emission standards for of road diesel vehicles. They recommended a buffer zone around mines to protect populated areas and 'pollution monitoring should accurately capture population exposure for communities and homes proximate to pollution point sources'.
Yet with all this proven scientific evidence the NSW Government allows mining companies to build open-cut mines as close as 200 metres from homes.
The Rocky Hill Coal mine should never be allowed to be built so close to families. The NSW Government has a duty of care to protect its citizens from known harm.

GRL makes much of the employment opportunities for Gloucester. Opportunities are not jobs. The Gloucester experience is that mining jobs commonly are filled by drive-in-drive-out workers who spend very little of their money in Gloucester. Or they are taken from existing businesses and industries. The task of training new employees is a cost that is worn by Gloucester industry and business. Workers will be most likely drawn from the ready supply of qualified staff in the Hunter and from the larger population centres along the coast. The impact off additional traffic on an already poor quality road will most likely result in a higher accident rate.
And how will Gloucester readjust after the mine closes is a question that GRL does not discuss.

The cumulative impacts of mining in the valley would be compounded by the proposed concurrent development of the Stratford Extension Project, the Rocky Hill coal project and AGL's coal seam gas project. This would change the character of the town from rural to industrial and provide difficulties for tourist based businesses. Who wants to visit a coal pit....seen one, seen them all. Gloucester is unique..... there is only one and this has provided the attraction for new residents and the basis of tourism.

The recommendation by Economists at Large ( independent review) supports my position.

"In the absence of a cost-benefit analysis supporting claimed net-benefits, and consistent
with the finding of the independent review that adverse social, economic and environmental
impacts of the project outweigh the potential benefits, the project should not be approved."

I have made no reportable political donations.

The pros and cons of a new mine are constantly tossed around, there will be those that are opposed and the advocates. This is what makes life more interesting.

I personally am an advocate. I see both sides of the argument and I am glad that people are raising the issues that they are. We have to look after the world and what we have and we want people to be able to prosper.

The government continually enforces greater restrictions and challenges potential companies to ensure that communities and environments are protected. I believe that the current EIS for the Rocky Hill project has addressed a lot of the issues that have been raised within community forums.

Restrictions on noise pollution and the requirement of restoring the land back to it's original nature is all happening due to the voices of the community and the actions of government. Yes there have been times in the past that mines in particular haven't looked after the environment and species and pollution have occurred. But it has to be applauded that we are now at the stage of realising its importance. We may be extracting coal from the ground but the farmland it is now will once again be farmland afterwards.

Mining can create a further diversification of occupations within a community. In a lot of circumstances mining employees also bring with them their families. This may introduce another doctor, teacher, fireman etc. into the community to further aid existing residents. It may provide a range of multicultural advantages.

The local businesses reap the rewards in profits associated with the increase in jobs.

Employment for Gloucester

It provides jobs for younger people and brings money into the town

I would like to support the proposal for the Rocky Hill Coal project as we need more industries in our area as well as creating local jobs.

`Merewether'
695 Bucketts Way East
GLOUCESTER
NSW 2422



28/10/2013


Director, Mining Projects
Development Assessment Systems and Approvals
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sir,

ROCKY HILL COAL PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SSD-5156.

I am writing to oppose the Gloucester Resources Ltd's (GRL) development application for an open cut coal mine within the Gloucester valley. I own several properties in the Gloucester Shire. My objections are as follows:

1. The mine is located too close to the residential areas of Gloucester and will have negative impacts on quality of life, individual property values and the scenic value of the town. I am concerned for the elderly and my young grandchildren who live nearby. Their health will be compromised through exposure to coal dust, blasting emissions and diesel fumes from additional trains.

2. Surrounding rural properties would be made un-saleable.

3. Long-established agricultural activities would continue to be displaced. The property identified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as receptor 56A has been in the family for 4 generations and currently operates as a highly productive 210ha dairy farm. Something which is not recognized in the EIS. The Rocky Hill mine threatens the future of this farm.

4. 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.

5. Dust from the mine would have health and nuisance effects on hundreds of residents. In particular I do not want the health of my young grandchildren and their parents compromised by subjecting them to blasting emissions and coal dust.

6. 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.

7. The mine is located on a floodplain in the catchment of the Manning River, which supplies drinking water to major towns downstream.

8. The potential impacts of the mine on sub-surface water are not adequately understood.

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

10. Expansion plans are not discussed in the EIS to inform the community of future threats. It is believed Stage 2 of the project will see the mine expand to the north, even closer to Gloucester. This is not acceptable and needs to be addressed.



Yours Sincerely,

Kerry Sansom
Director
Yarrawonga Pastoral Co. Pty. Ltd.

Why I oppose the Rocky Hill Mine

Decreased incentive for Newcomers to settle here

Eight years ago we were semi-retired and looking for a place to settle where we could live out a pleasant retirement on a few acres in a beautiful place. When we bought here in Gloucester we did not know about the proposed mining expansion in the area and were certainly not informed about it. Would we have bought here if we had known? Very likely we would have looked elsewhere. And therein lies my argument - most people are not willing to retire or invest in a property in a coal-mining town where there are so many unknowns for the future.

The affect on the health and well being of residents as well as financial loss.

We have already witnessed the affect on people's lives, and indeed livelihood, where the mining companies have bought up farms and properties. Even when an appropriate monetary sale price has been paid, there are so many other intangible losses. These include the stress of selling up and the heartache of having to leave a home where children were born and brought up and memories made. Gardens which were lovingly planted and nurtured over the years, trees that have grown up from small saplings, improvements to fencing and paddocks - these efforts are all laid waste and the emotional toll has been great. And for those who have not yet sold out, their farms and properties have at best lost value, and at worst are completely unsalable. This is also true of properties adjoining the mine, which would be impacted by noise, dust and increased road traffic.

The environmental impact

Rocky Hill mine works would mean the clearing of dry rainforest resulting in an impact on threatened birds and mammals, and the very real potential damaging effect on ground water and catchments. The promise that the management of impacts will be addressed in management plans that will not be in place until after the project is approved is in no way reassuring. The lovely scenery which is so important for the tourist industry of our area will definitely be severely impacted and the mine's solution of a treed barrier gives me no comfort - the vistas and outlooks will no longer be seen or enjoyed.

Personal Impact

Although fortunately, these things do not directly impact my property, my life certainly has been compromised. We were planning a fulfilling retirement - to restore our little stretch of river, to grow some of our own food, to enjoy the environment - the birds and wildlife around us. Instead we spend much of our time and effort in fighting these intrusive and destructive ventures because we feel we have a responsibility to those who are affected, and indeed to the whole of the Gloucester community, to object strongly to this mine going ahead.

To quote Tim Winton (Sydney Morning Herald, Spectrum, October 12-13), I am "appealing to people's higher nature. And getting Nature itself a fair hearing."

I object to the proposed Rocky Hill Mine Project on the following grounds:
- I am a fourth generation local, residing in Stratford, approximately one kilometre from the original Stratford 'Boutique' Mine, and I experience many negative impacts from that mine and believe these same issues will compound with an additional mine to impact negatively on Gloucester residents, the community and the whole valley.
- 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 vulnerable 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.
- 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.
- 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.

Dear Sir / Madam,
This is a brief submission that objects to the approval of the Rocky Hill Mine at Gloucester. There are numerous reasons that it should not proceed including:
Loss of the rural character of the Valley and its' Lifestyle
Loss of Land Values
Loss of Flora and Fauna Diversity
Loss of Citizens' Health
Loss of Business for Tourism and Leisure related activities
Loss of productive agricultural land
Loss of water available for farming
Loss of available labour to farms

This proposed mine would be located too close to residences, schools and pre-schools. Our water quality (tanks and streams) will lessen. Our sleep and general health and well-being will be greatly disturbed. The net gain of jobs in Gloucester will be little. Farms have been bought up and rural jobs have been lost. When the mines go as the resource is depleted the agricultural land will not produce as it once did. Residents' lives and livlihoods are already compromised with existing approved extractive industry developments.
This project is in the wrong place. The Gloucester valley is a tunnel like valley with an inversion effect. Health problems are exacerbated with such geology and prevailing winds.
I look to a reasoned and reasonable outcome for the people who live here now and who hope to live here in the future.
Please do not approve this Rocky Hill Project.

I have just moved my young family to Gloucester and this part of the world is just beautiful. I cannot believe how lovely the place is to bring up my young family and we regularly stand admiring the view across to The Buckets. However I recently heard that if the new mine goes ahead we will be able to hear some of the noise from the mine even on the far side of town. Unfortunately this does not fit with the ideal we envisioned in moving our family out of the loud noisy city to this lovely country town. The mine is just too close, please do not put this albatross around our necks when many of us love the town for how it is, as we live in it now.