I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) & Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) continuation projects.
The Land & Environment court has already rejected the Warkworth extension.
As someone who grew up at Jerry's Plains & has seen the environmental degredation in the area it has been distressing & woeful.
The Hunter Valley has always had mines & farms coexist the unfettered expansion of mining has destroyed the rural community. Enough is enough.
This mine moves into a fragile & endangered ecology, this should be enough to stop the project. Let alone the increased load of surface & ground water resources, the impact on air quality & the impact on aboriginal cultural heritage.
There is a reduction in demand for coal, we do not need to be damaging our environmental heritage to produce a product with declining demand.

I Kirsty Kelly am writing this 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.

Yes this is copied and pasted but I could not have put it better myself and does not detract from the importance and intent of my personal submission.

Yours Sincerely

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 endorse unreservedly this submission by Lock the Gate:

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.

Barrie Griffiths
North East Forest Alliance Hunter Region.

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. As an ex-vet nurse I am particularly concerned about the biodiversity loss, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and the significant 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. Although there are some differences in this new application, it does not address unacceptable outcomes already noted in legislative protection law.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, and important water resources, which puts human health in the region at risk. The proposal should be rejected.

I wish to oppose the Warkworth Extension proposal, as currently submitted.
This is broadly the same as the last application which was rejected in both the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court.
If allowed to proceed, it will not only be doing so against the decisions of the NSW justice system, but will risk unacceptable damage to the biodiversity of the area, with attendant noise problems and damage to the community of Bulga.
Please uphold the integrity of the NSW judicial system and consider the environmental effects of this proposal.

I do not support Rio Tinto's current development application to expand the Warkworth Mine westwards towards Bulga village (Project).
I live in the inner west of Sydney. My extended family are from the Hunter Valley and I frequently visit the Hunter Valley, staying in Pokolbin while escaping Sydney for the weekend. The Hunter Valley is a beautiful part of NSW.
I have followed the Bulga community in the news with interest over the past few years. I have also visited Bulga and have met many Bulga residents. Their resilience and community spirit was warming and uplifting.
Proposal
The Project is almost identical to the proposed westward expansion that was rejected by Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court in 2013 (a decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeal this year). The LEC undertook an extensive exercise in balancing all relevant matters and determined that the preferable decision was to disapprove the carrying out of the project. The Project fails to address key issues raised by Preston CJ in his judgment.
The only thing that has changed is the current legal framework.
The NSW Government has, over the past 2 years, made changes to the NSW planning and environment legislation which now:
1. prioritises economic considerations above environmental and social considerations in the assessment of mining projects; and
2. allows miners to clear native vegetation and provide weaker offsets that are not `like for like'.
The NSW Government has made these legislative changes to allow Rio Tinto to have their mine extension approved and give all miners more certainty. We have also seen a clear move by the NSW Government to have the PAC hold public hearings for all coal mine applications/extensions/ modifications, as a strategic move to remove merit appeal rights from communities. Unfortunately, Bulga's bold success in the Land and Environment Court saw the end of merit appeals for all mining proposals and communities. These communities are now powerless.
Enough is enough.
I do not support the Project for the following reasons:
1. Social impacts
If the Project is approved, the village of Bulga will not survive. The impacts of the Project on the lives of Bulga residents will be so severe they will not be able to stay in their homes. Social impacts from coal dust and noise cannot be avoided with the mine extending closer towards the village and with the removal of Saddleback Ridge.
Bulga is a 200 year old village and it will be destroyed. The Project is not suitable this close to an old and established village - it is the wrong proposal in the wrong place. The villages of Camberwell, Ravensworth and Warkworth have all been destroyed by other mines in the area and there is value for all of us in saving Bulga.
2. Ecology
The Project will result in the clearing of an endangered ecological community, the Warkworth Sands Woodland (WWS EEC). We should be protecting our biodiversity, not destroying it for coal. The WWS EEC is unique to this part of the Hunter Valley. The mine has failed to prove that this EEC can be either rehabilitated or moved and re-established. Until this can be proven, it should not be destroyed. It is the wrong proposal in the wrong place.
3. Economic analysis
Chief Justice Preston of the LEC determined that he was not satisfied that Rio Tinto's economic analysis supported the position that the economic benefits of the 2012 project outweighed the environmental, social and other costs.
I have read many articles written by economists that are critical of economic claims made by Rio Tinto. I believe Rio Tinto has sensationalised any anticipated loss it would incur in the event the Project was not approved. Rio Tinto's economic analysis should not be accepted unchallenged and on face value.
The Project should not be approved. It is the wrong proposal in the wrong location. The ecological and social impacts of the Project are not acceptable. There needs to be a point at which the NSW Government says "no, this project is not suitable for this area".

I am for the expansion of Mount Thorley Warkworth the impact this would have on not only the company but the wider community is catastrophic.
With the adjoining mine already cutting back positions has made a significant impact on those who directly and indirectly work for the mining industry in the valley we can't afford to have any more do the same thing.
Singleton and the surrounding towns have suffered from the recent closures and this does not stop here!!
The impact on family members of those who have lost there position/Job is alarming and I feel for those who have and are suffering from this economic downturn which has affected the mines in the valley.
the government and its royalties should inject these straight back into the community to help those who have suffered so far with thus said down turn..
In closing not granting the extension is such a significant impact on all those involved and I fully support this expansion!!!

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


I am soon to become a resident of Denman in the Hunter Valley and I feel 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.

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.