Graeme O'Brien
Object
Graeme O'Brien
Object
Bulga
,
New South Wales
Message
This is not a new application - it is the old one rebadged.
Attachments
Tanya Tlaskal
Object
Tanya Tlaskal
Object
BULGA
,
New South Wales
Message
Personal Submission
WARKWORTH AND MOUNT THORLEY MINES CONTINUATION PROJECT (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465)
4 August, 2014
Tanya Tlaskal
313 Inlet Road, BULGA, NSW,2330
My name is Tanya Tlaskal and I am a resident of the village of Bulga.
I strongly oppose both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects. No matter how Rio Tinto presents the project, it is still exactly the same old extension we have been fighting against for four years.
The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 in favour of Bulga village. 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.
We, people of Bugla were ecstatic, we have won, we thought that we can have some peace and to continue with our lives undisturbed. To our utter disbelief Rio Tinto have simply submitted the same mining application again. The old project has been split in two and the project name updated. However, 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.
We will never stop fighting for our village, because it is a place we love and where we belong.
Our village's David and Goliath battle had become a symbol all over the world. We all know who had won in the end.
WARKWORTH AND MOUNT THORLEY MINES CONTINUATION PROJECT (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465)
4 August, 2014
Tanya Tlaskal
313 Inlet Road, BULGA, NSW,2330
My name is Tanya Tlaskal and I am a resident of the village of Bulga.
I strongly oppose both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects. No matter how Rio Tinto presents the project, it is still exactly the same old extension we have been fighting against for four years.
The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 in favour of Bulga village. 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.
We, people of Bugla were ecstatic, we have won, we thought that we can have some peace and to continue with our lives undisturbed. To our utter disbelief Rio Tinto have simply submitted the same mining application again. The old project has been split in two and the project name updated. However, 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.
We will never stop fighting for our village, because it is a place we love and where we belong.
Our village's David and Goliath battle had become a symbol all over the world. We all know who had won in the end.
Attachments
Justine Suthers
Object
Justine Suthers
Object
Woy Woy
,
New South Wales
Message
This is a submission to the NSW Department of Planning 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 department also has failed to upload the proponents political donation statement and failed to follow up other missing items on the application form.
Sincerely,
Justine Suthers
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 department also has failed to upload the proponents political donation statement and failed to follow up other missing items on the application form.
Sincerely,
Justine Suthers
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Bulga
,
New South Wales
Message
I do not support the application to extend the Mount Thorley and Warkworth Mine (MTW) application and I object to the application for the reasons detailed in the following attachment.
Attachments
Robert McLaughlin
Object
Robert McLaughlin
Object
Bulga
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly oppose the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6) and request that this Development Application be refused.
I chose to settle in Bulga in 1981 fully aware that open cut mines operated in the Singleton area.
I, along with other residents made the choice to live in Bulga as I believed that the Mt Thorley Warkworth (MTW) mine would not encroach any closer to Bulga. When the Ministerial Deed of Agreement was signed in 2003 we believed we were justified in our earlier thinking and this Agreement formerly and legally confirmed that our community and the precious local environment would be protected forever from further encroachment by MTW.
When this present NSW Government decided not to honour a Ministerial Deed of Agreement, ignore decisions by both the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal and change the NSW State Planning Laws in such a way as to make those laws an instrument to promote development of mining resources we were shocked and outraged.
It is unconscionable that in 2013, Christopher Hartcher, the disgraced former Minister for Energy, amended this protective Deed of Agreement so the Warkworth mine could then mine through the Non Disturbance Areas. By doing this, the NSW Government is not only ignoring the findings of The NSW Land and Environment Court of 2013 and The NSW Supreme Court of Appeal 2014 but is unjustifiably supporting the foreign owned Rio Tinto and not this community and the constituents of NSW. Clearly this NSW Government does not share the community of Bulga's values or those accepted by a modern democracy of obeying the Law of the Land (i.e. court decisions) or even adhering to basic principles of honesty and integrity and the concept of a fair go. Both the International Council on Mining and Minerals and the International Finance Corporation recognise sustainable development requires an explicit balance of economic, environmental and health considerations. A recent Senate inquiry into the impacts of air quality on health in Australia found balancing a broad range of issues, including economic development, is essential for mitigating the health impacts of mining.
The present unacceptable level of exposure to Bulga residents of particulates, noise, vibration, and light pollution would be greatly increased if the MTW proposal were approved. The Federal Government pollution database shows that coal mining related pollution has doubled in the past twelve months in line with the mining industry's rapid growth. A total of 53,000 tonnes of particulate matter less than 10microns (PM10) was produced in the Singleton area in the past year - 96percent of that came from coalmining. The industry is also responsible for almost all of the particulate matter less than 2.microns in the area in the same period. In addition, tonnes of potentially fatal toxic fumes produced from open - cut blasting and diesel operated equipment are added to the airborne cocktail each day. This proposal by Rio Tinto will add to the cumulative effect of the pollution burden, this cannot be allowed to happen. If the present pollution trend continues the NSW Government may well find themselves culpable for knowingly exposing Hunter valley residents to harmful levels of pollutants .Sustainable ( a word that is missing in the planning amendment ) economic development is essential for the wellbeing of the community. But economic development cannot be the sole or even principle purpose of planning and development regulations.
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 toward their town. It is impossible to sell a property in Bulga. People are at the mercy of a predatory foreign mining company and a corrupt government doing their bidding.
I chose to settle in Bulga in 1981 fully aware that open cut mines operated in the Singleton area.
I, along with other residents made the choice to live in Bulga as I believed that the Mt Thorley Warkworth (MTW) mine would not encroach any closer to Bulga. When the Ministerial Deed of Agreement was signed in 2003 we believed we were justified in our earlier thinking and this Agreement formerly and legally confirmed that our community and the precious local environment would be protected forever from further encroachment by MTW.
When this present NSW Government decided not to honour a Ministerial Deed of Agreement, ignore decisions by both the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal and change the NSW State Planning Laws in such a way as to make those laws an instrument to promote development of mining resources we were shocked and outraged.
It is unconscionable that in 2013, Christopher Hartcher, the disgraced former Minister for Energy, amended this protective Deed of Agreement so the Warkworth mine could then mine through the Non Disturbance Areas. By doing this, the NSW Government is not only ignoring the findings of The NSW Land and Environment Court of 2013 and The NSW Supreme Court of Appeal 2014 but is unjustifiably supporting the foreign owned Rio Tinto and not this community and the constituents of NSW. Clearly this NSW Government does not share the community of Bulga's values or those accepted by a modern democracy of obeying the Law of the Land (i.e. court decisions) or even adhering to basic principles of honesty and integrity and the concept of a fair go. Both the International Council on Mining and Minerals and the International Finance Corporation recognise sustainable development requires an explicit balance of economic, environmental and health considerations. A recent Senate inquiry into the impacts of air quality on health in Australia found balancing a broad range of issues, including economic development, is essential for mitigating the health impacts of mining.
The present unacceptable level of exposure to Bulga residents of particulates, noise, vibration, and light pollution would be greatly increased if the MTW proposal were approved. The Federal Government pollution database shows that coal mining related pollution has doubled in the past twelve months in line with the mining industry's rapid growth. A total of 53,000 tonnes of particulate matter less than 10microns (PM10) was produced in the Singleton area in the past year - 96percent of that came from coalmining. The industry is also responsible for almost all of the particulate matter less than 2.microns in the area in the same period. In addition, tonnes of potentially fatal toxic fumes produced from open - cut blasting and diesel operated equipment are added to the airborne cocktail each day. This proposal by Rio Tinto will add to the cumulative effect of the pollution burden, this cannot be allowed to happen. If the present pollution trend continues the NSW Government may well find themselves culpable for knowingly exposing Hunter valley residents to harmful levels of pollutants .Sustainable ( a word that is missing in the planning amendment ) economic development is essential for the wellbeing of the community. But economic development cannot be the sole or even principle purpose of planning and development regulations.
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 toward their town. It is impossible to sell a property in Bulga. People are at the mercy of a predatory foreign mining company and a corrupt government doing their bidding.