Warkworth Coal Mine Continuation

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 believe that Warkworth mine should be allowed to extend.
Singleton really needs this project to go ahead for the future of our town.
I have a family and want employment for my husband and children if these mines are not allowed to expand my children will have no future in the Hunter Valley.
Please consider the greater good of our community compared to the minority of who are causing issues.

I object to The Warkworth Continuation Project. This project has the same mine footprint as the Warkworth Extension Project. So all the issues that were put forward to the Land and Environment Court, Judge Preston agreed with BMPA. Rio Tinto appealed this decision to the Supreme Court and the 3 Judges Beazley,Tobias and Bathurst agreed with the Land and Environment's ruling. So how can this new Warkworth Continuation Project hold any merit? Some things that have changed since the Warkworth Extension Project was overturned, have been the removal of the 2003 ministerial deed which Brad Hazzard removed, the SEPP amendments and the merit based appeals have also disappeared. To me this demonstrates that the government is in bed with Rio Tinto. The government is supposed to be a democratic and non-bias system towards the citizens it is supposed to provide and protect when the negative impacts of such a large open cut mine cannot be just measured on economic worth alone.

To prove the point that the government is favouring Rio Tinto have a look at the Drayton South Project. The PAC recommended that Drayton South change their mine footprint by staying behind a ridge to protect the residents from mining impacts. So how can the Warkworth Continuation Project be ever approved when MTW want to mine through Saddleridge towards residents. This system is so inconsistent.
Saddleridge should not be mined. The importance of Saddleridge in 2003 was so great that the ridge was to be protected in a deed of agreement in perpetuity. Saddleridge acts as a buffer to protect Bulga from noise and visual impacts. Bulga has not moved and it is just as important now to keep Saddleridge intact as it was in 2003. Our property has full view of Saddleridge so if this project gets approved we will see the destruction of Saddleridge and will clearly see and hear all the heavy mine machinery operating and mine blasting on this ridge. This will happen 365 days a year, 24 hours a day for 21 years. Not a very positive outcome.

Warkworth Sands Woodlands does not occur anywhere else in Australia. This is an endangered and rare ecological area which will be open cut and will never be replaced. The WSW contains endangered flora and fauna and has a very significant heritage site for aborigines. The proposed offsets are not like for like. This area was a previous offset in the 2003 approval. Once an offset is an offset it should never be reverted to be mined.

The closure of Wallaby Scrub Rd should not happen. MTW are going to construct a road through the mine for emergency vehicles. Is this road going to be adequate enough so that no extra response time has occurred? This road will have to be adequate enough for vehicles to travel 100k/p/h. Wallaby Scrub Road is used by many motorists and for all this extra traffic to go to Mt Thorley to access the Golden Hwy will be a nightmare. This area is already heavily utilised.

To state that the noise, dust, social, visual, property devaluation and vibration impacts on Bulga residents will not be high is a joke. We already experience exceedences in conditions of consent. Our biggest problem is noise. Noise monitoring for our property (no 41) was done in the EIS. The monitoring showed that we are of low impact. The problem with this is that the monitoring was done at the start of our driveway 1km away from our house with an incline of 15metres. So this does not truly represent the noise we receive from MTW. Low frequency noise is also a problem. All times that I have monitored on our hand held there is always a 15db or more difference from the DBA scale to DBC scale. So this adds another 5DBA to our already high reading. Our land value has decreased since the Warkworth Extension was first proposed and continues to decrease. Even if you could sell your property at a lower price to leave the area, it would not happen. Properties have been for sale for over 2 years or more in Bulga. A couple have been lucky enough to sell recently but have lost 100K on property value. That is a fair chunk of change to lose which you have no control over. I think that if this project is to go ahead than a recommendation should be made that if peoples homes are not within acquisition zones, who place their properties on the market and cannot be sold within 12 months or more than MTW should be made to purchase this property. People should not have to feel that they have no options to move into the future.

I must state that I am not against mining. I am against this project as it is morally wrong. I have lived with this mine for 30 years and other surrounding mines for 39 years. This mine was to end in 2021. I could live with that. I cannot live with another 21 years of mining coming towards our property in full view. We have seen conditions that have been in previous approvals that were deemed important enough to protect the people and environment that would be affected only to be ignored or taken away when a new project is proposed. This is unacceptable. If this mine went underground there would be no objection from me.

I have two sons and my granddaughters husband work at MTW they depend on the mine for a living. A lot of local people that live in Gresford area work in the mining industry or for company's that contract to the mining. These people help support the small businesses in this area. Take away the mining and there will be a lot of unemployment and hardship for a lot of other businesses in the hunter. I fully support the mining in the Hunter Valley and the1300 jobs that are on the line at MTW.

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.

The Lancaster Motor Group and the MTW coal mine has had a business relationship for years. The Lancaster Motor Group is a family owned & operated business and the MTW coal mine has been vital in the growth of our business.

MTW is a major employer for the Singleton community, and these employees then spend their money on the township, supporting the local economy.

The approval of the Warkworth project is vital for the long term growth & economy of Singleton & the Hunter Valley

Support local jobs

Without these mines this town will infact collapse!! How many more families and people need to be affected before something is done to ensure the future of mining!

I support the extension of mt thorley in the hope I can work there again instead of commuting to w.a. to work fifo from perth. I would love to be home every night with my family and work residential mining once again.

We need this for our community, jobs will be lost and other company's will suffer if this does not get approved

I object to the proposed expansion due to the fact that coal and allieds acquisition zone does not include all of the houses in Bulga . I feel it is entirely unjust to buy out half of the village and therefore drastically reducing the value of any remaining privately owned properties.
I feel if coal and allied were to get the go ahead then they should be made to offer voluntary acquisition to ALL residents of bulga.

enough is enough we cannot breathe properly we cannot drink our water PLEASE SAVE OUR VILLAGE is peoples health not important obviously not as important as RIO'S PROFITS!

I would support the continuation of the mines but since I've been trying for eight years to gain employment in the mines with every attempt a fail and now have to give up my dream to work in the mines due to needing a wage for my family. I now dislike most tradies and big mining companies cause they wouldn't give a guy a little over weight a chance.

stop the dust stop the noise how much more of Australia
are you going to let these foreign owned companies dig up before you say enough is enough the majority of the profits gets sent home to these greedy buggers meanwhile our politicians are not even smart enough to say holy crap we digging up some of our best farming land bright bunch we have running Australia!

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,

As a resident of the region around the village of Bulga for 20 years now we have seen first hand how this community works together for the good of the area its people and the environment.

The community has a very active progress association who has just released a book on the history of the area. Over 200 people attended the occasion and they also held a very successful 100 year celebration for the Bulga Bridge approximately 2 years ago. This village has been the focus of travel to the Hunter Valley since the 1820's. This place has been there for all those years with many families having lived there for 6 generations- and Rio Tinto thinks they can just take over and buy them out!

This community has worked tirelessly to maintain their hall and sports grounds and all that is important to the village by helping at area events on a yearly basis.

One would think the the NSW Department of Planning and Environment would place foremost importance on these aspects of any application that could destroy the fabric of a Village which has been part of Australia's history.


Application SSD 6464 and SSD 6465 have previously been submitted as 1 and been rejected in both the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court as being flawed in both the planning and environmental aspect . You would wonder how it could ever be approved.

The environmental aspects exist in such great numbers that it is hard to believe how the Department could even consider the application when as a company they have done little to improve their environmental footprint.

Noise and Dust levels which have been a constant worry for residents never seem to improve. Even after much consultation and erection of dust and noise monitors the community is still faced with being constantly vigilant. It appears that little attempt has been made to improve these aspects of previous complaints from the residents- they should be allowed just to keep on keeping on!

The Warkworth Sands Woodlands is recognized by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service as an endangered ecological community. A company can just up and move it somewhere else and this will satisfy everything! Or you can boast about having a much larger offset area than is required. This is in a totally different locality with totally differing environmental conditions and it will be Ok!

The company can plead on loss of 1300 jobs! Who will check to see if all these jobs remain for the next 20-30 years!

Who will check to see if the environmental tasks are completed, who will enforce consistent noise or dust compliance- no one does it now.

Why should the people,the place and the environment be sacrificed for the sake of royalties ?

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. 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.

Further, I question a strategic planning process that fails to identify the value of protecting:
- farmland for farms, undermining long-term food security and confidence in the agricultural industry, for short-term mining royalties; and
- water resources for farmers in an intensive farmland region.

The people that should be protected in this case are not the multi-national mining company shareholders, but the people who have invested not just their money but their entire lives into this region - the local community. Farmers who have a unique connection to the land, who understand the unique requirements of farming that particular part of farmland cannot be replaced or moved. This farming knowledge is unique to a place, and rarely transferable to another region. Whilst the farmers affected by this mine expansion would not be at liberty to choose some other place to establish their farms, lives and livelihoods, I am certain that Rio Tinto have plenty of other coal resources that they can dig up.

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

I think it is about time that the NSW Government and your body recognises the damage and harm that extending mining projects such as this one will cause to the local community, tourism and our environment. Already there is too much dust; already there are too many open cut mines.

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 object on the grounds that this expansion is against scientific reason & evidence. It is also proven that harm will be caused to irreplaceable threatened & endangered ecology. I also object on the grounds that clearly no social licence exists, the extent to which residents have had to go to protect their way of life is supported by courts of law. Cumulative impacts clearly indicate that our region can no longer sustain such mining expansion. on a local and global scale this project is unreasonable. our health our environment our water our flora fauna our land our agriculture are not adequately protected, regulation may exist, however it is not being adequately enforced. far too regularly we receive air health alerts regarding particulate matter reaching unacceptable health standards and breaching set levels., economically this project no longer makes good sense, the price of coal has fallen, the cost to our health environment & the subsidising by the public purse all indicate such expansion is irrational. I am a coalminers daughter the mines have employed many of my large extended family. However never has the balance been so imbalanced. We have all had enough of this unbridled industry, tainted with corruption and constant breaches, when it bothers to self report or is caught. If our Hunter Valley is to survive and we as a community from generations are to remain in this region, then we must be able to live without the constant barrage of dust pollution ,coal trains industry diesel emissions from transport road traumas, road kill, failed community consultation, no real protection of heritage and culture , indigenous and European, or our water land air from a range of pollutants. Other industries like tourism & agriculture are all suffering through this excessively subsidised coal industry which no longer returns benefits to the people who suffer the impacts. We need diversification , not to be driven out or bulldozed by all too powerful companies. I also believe a duty of care exists on your qwho approve or disapprove these mining projects. Which to date has in my view failed to be enacted upon, that is to ensure the cocktail of chemicals we are exposed to and the risks of such, both singularly and cumulatively are properly communicated to all affected by this Industry. How much will this cost in terms of the flow on economically, when the company has extracted its resource, we will be left with a huge clean up bill and immeasurable suffering to our social fabric and personal, mental, physical, emotional, spiritual, community and environmental health. I don't think I am being melodramatic by saying, scientifically and literally this industry now is costing us all, the Earth. I implore you to act in our best interest & that of the generations to come. It can be no more coal business as usual.