Warkworth Coal Mine Continuation

I support MTW extension to secure jobs for people here in the Hunter Valley, NSW.

NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001
5th August 2014

I am strongly opposed to the Warkworth extension for the following reasons.

2003 Deed of Agreement.
Too many families including my own have purchased property, renovated or built new homes on the understanding that Warkworth Mine would not be mining Saddle Ridge or mining west of the Wallaby Scrub Road
In 2004 to assist my youngest daughters decision in purchasing in Bulga that this was the case, I personally contacted the mine and they assured me that the above was a written agreement and wouldn't be crossing Wallaby Scrub Road.
Our homes are our biggest asset and will be devalued by the mine extension. Real estate agents will tell you that you will not get full value for your property because of the approaching mine.
Bulga residents have been devastated by Warkworth decision to do a back flip on this agreement.

Bulga Village
History in the area shows that when a mining company starts to acquire homes in a village because of the impact of noise and dust that this is the of death knell for that village. The history being Hebden, Ravensworth, Camberwell and Warkworth Villages.
Bulga Village must not be written off just because of state significance.

Saddle Ridge
Noise
Saddle ridge is currently giving Bulga some protection from the Industrial noise of mining in the Warkworth Pit
The Ridge reflects mining noise back toward the mine where it has no effect.
The removal of this ridge will leave the high overburden piles exposed to Bulga residents.
With the ridge gone and the overburden behind the mine now reflecting noise towards Bulga, the mining noise will greatly increase.
The backdrop of the Bulga Mountains behind the village has an echoing effect of the mining noise, if a large rock is dropped into an empty truck we get to hear it twice.
Now we will have two reflectors facing each other.
It's like having a light bulb between two mirrors.
Other mining companies operating near towns either build an earth wall to protect the town from noise or mine in the direction away from the town thus protecting the town having the overburden between the mine and the town.
This application is the reverse of that with the mine heading for the village with the overburden behind it creating an amphitheatre of mining noise.

Visual Amenity
With the removal of Saddle Ridge this will give Bulga residents that live on slope of the mountain a 120 degree view of overburden. Can you imagine how depressing that will be for those residents.


Warkworth Sands Woodland

It has been noted by many experts the significance of Warkworth Sands Woodlands with all it's flora and fauna. It is totally impossible to duplicate this in another area. Once lost it is lost forever.

Diligence
This application is no different than the 2010 application to extend the mine.
No single person has put in more time and effort to understand the issues of this extension than Judge Preston of Land and Environment Court. Volumes and volumes of reports, data and evidence to go through before he made his judgment.
With Rio Tinto's appeal, the NSW Supreme court was commissioned to make judgment on errors claimed by Rio Tinto.
The NSW Supreme court rejected Rio Tinto's Claims.
There can be no better proof that this application should be rejected.

I have made no political donations.
Can the same be said for Rio Tinto?

Hubert Upward
95 Inlet Rd
Bulga NSW 2330

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001
5th August 2014

I am totally against the Warkworth Mine extension.
Myself and many Bulga Residents have complained many times over the past 4 years over the dust, noise and those big mine blasts.

Dust
The dust is appearing more now through my house even when it is all closed up. The front verandah faces east in the vicinity of Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine. It is just always covered in black dirt which I hose off frequently.
Of course this dust and toxic plume is in the air at all times. It is no good for our health.
I cannot imagine the effect this will have on the Bulga Residents in the future.

Mine Blasts
Those Mine Blasts at times just rock and shake the whole house and it goes for at least five seconds. Then you look out towards the mine and you see a big cloud of black, grey or orange plume or red dust floating over the Bulga Village. Mine Blasts also effect the birds as they twitter and call out in fright. The Putty Road is also Closed for at least 15 to 20 minutes for the Mine Blasts to go off . This is becoming a menace to us locals.

Noise
Noise at times is so immense, the mountain here like a amphitheatre and reflects the noise from Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine. It is day and night you can hear the trucks revving, roaring, humming and the rocks being put into back of the trucks, seems no end to all of the noise.

Vision
With the view of a Mine from the front verandah all I can see is Dust , Overburden and Trucks , even the road they drive on, and the Lights at night. I have seen many changes over the years and thought it would not come to this.
I have lived in Bulga almost 40 years now. We raised a Family, my children have their own Family and live in Bulga. One family member was bought out by the Mine and has left the area to our loss.
Bulga Village is not the same quiet Village I came to those many years ago.
I do not want this Proposed Extension Approval for Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine.
If you had a Coal Mine coming down your street you would be fighting for it to go away or come to some truthful agreement so you could live peacefully.

Justice
This extension is no different than the 2010 application which has been rejected by two courts.
I have made no political donations

Helen Upward.
95 Inlet Rd.
Bulga NSW 2330

1. The Land and Environment Court rejected the original proposal. This one is the same.
2. The NSW Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
3. The EIS submitted with this latest proposal is full of errors.
4. The proposal has no economic merit.

my continued employment at mount thorley warkworth will help to support my family. most of my expenses are spent locally at businesses in the hunter valley. any loss of jobs at this mine will cause people to relocate to other areas for work and will be detrimental to the entire area.

NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001
5th August 2014

I am totally against the Warkworth Mine extension.
Myself and many Bulga Residents have complained many times over the past 4 years over the dust, noise and those big mine blasts.

Dust
The dust is appearing more now through my house even when it is all closed up. The front verandah faces east in the vicinity of Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine. It is just always covered in black dirt which I hose off frequently.
Of course this dust and toxic plume is in the air at all times. It is no good for our health.
I cannot imagine the effect this will have on the Bulga Residents in the future.

Mine Blasts
Those Mine Blasts at times just rock and shake the whole house and it goes for at least five seconds. Then you look out towards the mine and you see a big cloud of black, grey or orange plume or red dust floating over the Bulga Village. Mine Blasts also effect the birds as they twitter and call out in fright. The Putty Road is also Closed for at least 15 to 20 minutes for the Mine Blasts to go off . This is becoming a menace to us locals.

Noise
Noise at times is so immense, the mountain here like a amphitheatre and reflects the noise from Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine. It is day and night you can hear the trucks revving, roaring, humming and the rocks being put into back of the trucks, seems no end to all of the noise.

Vision
With the view of a Mine from the front verandah all I can see is Dust , Overburden and Trucks , even the road they drive on, and the Lights at night. I have seen many changes over the years and thought it would not come to this.
I have lived in Bulga almost 40 years now. We raised a Family, my children have their own Family and live in Bulga. One family member was bought out by the Mine and has left the area to our loss.
Bulga Village is not the same quiet Village I came to those many years ago.
I do not want this Proposed Extension Approval for Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine.
If you had a Coal Mine coming down your street you would be fighting for it to go away or come to some truthful agreement so you could live peacefully.

Justice
This extension is no different than the 2010 application which has been rejected by two courts.
I have made no political donations

Helen Upward.
95 Inlet Rd.
Bulga NSW 2330

my continued employment at mount thorley warkworth will help to support my family. all of my expenses are spent locally at businesses in the hunter valley. any loss of jobs at this mine will cause people to relocate to other areas for work and the valley will lose a large amount of skill and good people

my continued employment at mount thorley warkworth will help to support my family. most of my expenses are spent locally at businesses in the hunter valley. any loss of jobs at this mine will cause people to relocate to other areas for work be detrimental to the entire area

My job depends on the approval of Mount Thorley Warkworth. My partner will lose his job when Vale puts their coal mine on care and maintenance and one secure income is a necessity. We would be forced to leave the area and state with our 3 small children.

his is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

My partner works for MTW and I work for Vale who is putting our mine on care and maintenance , closing. Without her job, we would be forced to move interstate for work along with our 3 small children.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

I support the continued expansion of Warkworth

As someone who works in and benefits from the mining industry and coal mining in particular I support the continuation of mining at MTW. I accept that it is very disruptive, but unlike housing and agriculture it is temporary use of the land and it will be rehabilitated during the course of the mining process. We all benefit from the mining and processing of minerals and metals, but we need to understand that we can't choose where we would like those deposits to be located. All we can ask is that we ensure it is done in the least disruptive way and the land is rehabilitated to its previous state. I am confident MTW will do this.

Singleton and the surrounding towns need the MTW extension to be approved to maintain businesses and employment in the area. The area has already been heavily impacted by job losses due to the downturn in the mining industry and cannot sustain any more of the same. It is crucial for the long term viability of the town and surrounds that this submission be approved.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

The extension to MTW is vital to the community. The jobs that will be lost if the approval isn't supported will affect not just those directly employed at MTW but the wider working economy.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.