The Queensland Land Court has come down against the planned $900 million Stage 3 expansion of the New Acland coal mine on the Darling Downs.
In a judgement today the court recommended that the Mining Leases and Environmental Authority amendment for Stage 3 not be granted.
Proponent New Hope Group said it was reviewing the recommendation to determine options available to it in order to secure approval of the project.
“The Queensland Minister for Natural Resources and Mines and the Chief Executive of the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection are the final decision-makers,” the company said in a statement today.
“They will consider all relevant matters in making their decisions regarding the grant of the Mining Leases and Environmental Authority amendment. These approvals and an Associated Water Licence will be required for the project to proceed.”
The New Acland mine has workforce of 782 employees and contractors. New Hope said the approval of the Stage 3 operation would provide employment stability for many years to come and that it remained committed to delivering the project.
Queensland Resources Council chief executive Ian Macfarlane said the QRC was very disappointed by the Land Court decision to reject New Hope’s Stage 3 New Acland project.
“Given the rigorous government assessment processes the project has already passed, including examination by the Independent Expert Scientific Committee as part of the federal government’s approval earlier this year, the decision today by the Land Court is surprising,” he said.
“This project is vital to the Darling Downs and would create up to 260 construction jobs and ongoing direct employment of up to 435 jobs and indirectly 2300, worth about $12 billion in economic benefits over the life of the project.
“Such a significant amount of job losses will have devastating flow-on effects to such a small community and the surrounding businesses that rely on the mine.”
Mr Macfarlane said the New Acland Stage 3 project had been in limbo for 10 years, including spending the last 18 months in a Land Court battle spearheaded by the taxpayer-funded Environmental Defenders Office (EDO).
A copy of the land court decision can be viewed here.
