Warkworth Coal Mine Continuation

I am writing as an ecologist and as Secretary of Armidale Branch of the National Parks Association of NSW to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health and amenity in the region and should be rejected.

Beth Williams OAM BSc

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 am appalled at what appears to be a complete hijacking of due process by a small group of people with a large amount of money. If this mine is approved it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of NSW and threatens our food and water security. Already large tracts of our country especially in the Hunter Valley have become uninhabitable because of this type of open cut mining with the trading of long term food and water security for the short term profits of a few.

I appeal to the Department of Planning to let common sense and integrity prevail, and that the applications be considered in the light of the overwhelming evidence of the disastrous impact these mine extensions would have, as well as two court decisions and reject these applications.

I support the project.

I wish to voice my support for the Warkworth Continuation Project. I strongly encourage the Dept. and Planning Assessment Commission to approve this project without delay.

I strongly oppose the proposed expansion of the Mount Thorley coal mine (SSD 6465) and request that this Development Application be refused.

Both the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal found against this proposal.

The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit. Bulga is not defined simply by the number of people who live there. People selected Bulga for the rural lifestyle and so the community is built around people who share common values.
Presently, residents are subjected to excessive levels of dust, noise, vibration and lights not normally experienced in a rural environment. This will worsen if the mine expansion is allowed.
If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.


Air quality has a major impact on the health of residents in the area around the open cut Mount Thorley mine. This fact cannot be ignored. Any further expansion of this mine will only further exceed the current dangerous levels of air pollution. The health implications of excessive exposure to particulates are well known. The Hunter Valley is enduring ever escalating dangerous levels of particulates and to approve the Mount Thorley mine extension would contribute further to already alarming particulate levels. The NSW Government may well be found responsible in a class action by the people of the Hunter Valley for the decisions, such as this present proposal, that are made despite contrary expert findings. To allow continued and escalating levels of exposure is not only negligent but a court may well find these decision makers liable.
The vibration and noise levels are already excessive and Rio Tinto is not applying the requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy with regard to Low Frequency noise. Rio Tinto has been fined for exceeding noise limits but this so far has not been a deterrent. More stringent actions must be taken to reduce the existing levels from the Mount Thorley mine and no consideration should be given to compound this existing problem by allowing the proposed extension. The continuing breaches of the current approvals by Rio Tinto are being ignored by the NSW Government and this is unacceptable not only to the people of Bulga but many residents of the Hunter Valley.

Residents of Bulga continue to suffer deep distress about the possible demise of their village (first settled in 1820) and the damage done to their much loved landscape. This deep distress and anxiety will worsen if the mine expands even closer to the edge of their town.

I write to object to any approval of both the Warkworth (SSD6464) and Mt. Thorley (SSD6465) Continuation Projects on the following grounds:

Any extension to these existing mines would have further disastrous and irreversible impacts on the local ecological environment and biodiversity, including that of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community, on the integrity of the local surface- and ground-water hydrology, on what's left of original scenic landscape, and will have continuing impacts on the social amenity, welfare and long-term health of the residents of Bulga and adjacent areas caused by the ongoing noise- and dust-pollution, and night-time light-pollution, not to mention the adverse psychological effect on these residents caused by having to live adjacent to an active opencut mine that none of these residents want, which is destroying the land-value of their properties, and which they have been opposing now for a protracted period, including in the courts. Approval for the Continuation of these mines has already been denied in both the Land and Environment Court and the Supreme Court of NSW, and beyond the Hunter Valley region there has been a groundswell of opinion by the residents of NSW in general (and also in Qld) that they do NOT want more coal mines or extensions to existing coal mines for a multitude of reasons. These reasons include the fact that such mines destroy: the local landscape; the integrity and long-term security of the local and regional regional hydrology; the ecology and biodiversity; the quality and integrity of prime agricultural and pastoral land; and the quality of social amenity and physical and psychological health of local residents.

Moreover, the combustion of coal worldwide is resulting in Global Warming and associated dangerous Climate Change, Ocean-Acidification, and sea-level rise; and for which and other associated reasons (primarily related air-pollution in China and India) there is now a steady decline in global demand for thermal-coal, as already witnessed by the closing of various coal-mines in both NSW and Qld and the threatened closing of others, such that many of these mines and their associated rail-transport and export-loading port-infrastructure are destined to become stranded assets, with consequent profound economic and social impacts that are only just now starting to become manifest.

The people of NSW have said "NO" to these proposed mine-extensions, and the Courts in NSW have similarly said "NO"
to them. Moreover, the history of coal-mining in NSW has a history of corrupt practice, as recently demonstrated by the NSW ICAC. The voters of NSW elect their politicians to safeguard them and their families and to represent their majority viewpoints. Coal-mining is no longer the majority mandate of NSW voters to NSW politicians. Hence, the NSW Government should not approve these coal-mine extensions.

Warkworth Sands Woodland
I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.

I feel very strongly that the environment and its concerns should be of far greater importance than the economic benefit of mining or the vast amount of power Australia consumes. It is in our best interest going forward to minimize all mining work across Australia and instead look to renewable energy sources to power our life.

I hope that future generations both human and non human will be considered and the welfare of the hunter natural environment before the interests of Rio Tinto and its business partners.

Yours Sincerely
Samuel Shaw

I strongly oppose the 2014 Continuation Project (SSD 6464). This proposal seeks to expand the Warkworth coal mine and I request that this Development Application be refused.

If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.
The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit.
People selected Bulga for the rural lifestyle and so the community is built around the common values of its residents.
The NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal fond that this proposal should not proceed.

I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.
The consequences of the environmental damage will be felt worldwide

it is quite disgusting that Rio Tinto are subjecting the people of Bulga to yet another application. Twice it has been thrown out of court.
This application should definitely not be allowed

I strongly oppose the 2014 Continuation Project (SSD 6464). This proposal seeks to expand the Warkworth coal mine and I request that this Development Application be refused.

If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.
The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit.
The noise and dust is already bad and to add to this would be totally unacceptable.
Two courts in NSW found that this proposal should not proceed.

Objection Warkworth Continuation
The supposed new application is not new in a true sense. It is merely the previously rejected application split into Mount Thorley and Warkworth.
The reasons why it should be rejected are listed in the Land and Environment Court Judgement of Justice Preston and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal. One of Preston's reasons was that it was not economic. Nothing has changed, it is still uneconomic when you incorporate ALL of the issues.

I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.
This project has already been rejected by community and the court. It is unfortunate that Rio Tinto does not hear the wishes of those who live in the area of the mine.
The project threatens the environment, air quality, native species, and local communities.
I urge decision makers to consider the wishes of community and the previous reasoned ruling of the court, and reject this proposal.

I strongly oppose the 2014 Continuation Project (SSD 6464). This proposal seeks to expand the Warkworth coal mine and I request that this Development Application be refused.

If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.
The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit.
The noise and dust is already bad and to add to this would be totally unacceptable.
Two courts in NSW found that this proposal should not proceed.

Objection Warkworth Continuation
The supposed new application is not new in a true sense. It is merely the previously rejected application split into Mount Thorley and Warkworth.
The reasons why it should be rejected are listed in the Land and Environment Court Judgement of Justice Preston and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal. One of Preston's reasons was that it was not economic. Nothing has changed, it is still uneconomic when you incorporate ALL of the issues.

I would like to take the opportunity to lodge my opposition to the expansion of this mine and to do so with the following major concerns that have not been properly prepared, evaluated and considered:
* The project has been refused in previous version following approvals by the Department of planning and its agent the PAC.
* The Approval was overturned in the LEC.
* The refusal to grant was supported in the Supreme Court.
* The company intends to destroy habitat lands already set aside under deed of agreement.
* The company intend to similar destroy, not temporarily relocate the section of the Great North road known locally as Wallaby Scrub road.
* The Heritage areas within the project both aboriginal and European are to be mined without proper consideration of the value to the local region and the State.
* The lack of the protection of the environment regarding water and the habitats being impacted is inappropriate.
* There is no realistic consideration for the people of Bulga and surrounds with the impacts of noise, dust, lighting and visual amenity only given lip service with no genuine solutions being reviewed.
* The economics is poorly reviewed and flawed.
* With the overwhelming quantity of documentation the time allowed is not realistic to prepare a comprehensive response and as such I would submit this brief objection with the request to be allowed a period of extension to provide a more adequate response.
The fact that the Mine has chosen to submit this application as a dual format being both individual and combined with the neighbouring mine further confused all issues.
Regards,
Ron Fenwick.

Objection Warkworth Continuation
The supposed new application is not new in a true sense. It is merely the previously rejected application split into Mount Thorley and Warkworth.
The reasons why it should be rejected are listed in the Land and Environment Court Judgement of Justice Preston and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal. One of Preston's reasons was that it was not economic. Nothing has changed, it is still uneconomic when you incorporate ALL of the issues.

Objection - Warkworth Coal Mine - Warkworth Continuation Project
Application Number: SSD 6464

I am writing to formally object to the Warkworth Continuation Project Application Number: SSD 6464, as detailed below
* Closure of Wallaby Scrub Road, as a regular user of this road any closure will cause myself increased travel time to my place of work, this will also create the need for more traffic at the Mt Thorley intersection with the Golden Highway which is a dangerous intersection particularly for vehicles accessing the Putty Road towards Bulga.

* I object to the removal of Saddle Ridge, as this ridge is a buffer zone for the local rural community and the loss of this ridge will impact the local rural community with noise and vibration above the Commonwealth Government noise level criteria of 30 decibels

* As a local resident I am also concerned with the effects this will have on the Air Quality and Dust exposure that Open Cut Mining this close to my house will cause

* I also have concerns as to the social impact this approval could have on the township of Bulga which I reside, there is a potential for residents being forced to sell and move

Many of these concerns could be alleviated or reduced by underground mining, as has been prove in other Cities/Towns

Yours faithfully
Brett Gallagher

Objection Warkworth Continuation
The supposed new application is not new in a true sense. It is merely the previously rejected application split into Mount Thorley and Warkworth.
The reasons why it should be rejected are listed in the Land and Environment Court Judgement of Justice Preston and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal. One of Preston's reasons was that it was not economic. Nothing has changed, it is still uneconomic when you incorporate ALL of the issues.