When I started my first job in the mining industry I was given the choice of working for Rio Tinto at the Mount Thorley Warkworth or working somewhere in Central Queensland. I chose to work at MTW as I wanted to opportunity to be part of a community, not a mining camp. This mine provides the livelihood for hundreds of people and all the small businesses in the local area. I live locally, I support the local businesses and I get involved in local community events and sports. If the MTW continuation is not approved it will not be just one person who is forced to leave the area to seek other work it will be hundreds. Multiply that by all the other family members who will also leave and the impact on local community is drastic.

In recent months we have seen a number of people made redundant from various mines in the surrounding area and even had a number of mine and small businesses close or severly reduce production. MTW has managed to maintain it's workforce and stay in production throughout this downturn. For it to close because an approval for a continuation was not granted would be a shame.

I strongly support this application not only in the hope of securing my job and liveilhood but also those of the thousands of other people who rely on this business too.

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 it makes common sense to allow this extension Infrastructure is in place and this development is good for the region.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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!

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.