Glendell Continued Operations SSD-9349 and SSD-5850-Mod-4, Statement of Reasons for Decision (28 October 2022)
\nNew South Wales Independent Planning Commission<\/p>\n
A subsidiary of Glencore Coal Pty. Limited (the company) applied to extend the life of coal mining operations at the Glendell Mine in New South Wales. \u00a0The decision was referred to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) by the Department of Planning and Environment because more than 50 objections were received during public exhibition of the proposed project. Statement of Reasons, para. 4.<\/p>\n
The company proposed to enlarge the mine footprint and extract an additional 135 metric tons of coal over a 21-year period using open-cut mining methods.\u00a0 Id., para. 17.\u00a0 The Glendell mine is situated on the traditional lands of the Wonnarua people, who consider the land to have high cultural significance. The area of proposed expansion included the Ravensworth Homestead complex, which was established by early European settlers in the 1820s. The IPC noted that \u201csome stakeholders, including the Heritage Council and the [Plains Clan of the Wonnarua People] Aboriginal group, suggest that the Homestead site is highly significant for its association with frontier conflict between European and Aboriginal people, including a reported massacre.\u201d Id., para. 90. The Commission acknowledged, however, that others disagreed as to this history, and Aboriginal heritage associated with the homestead site was \u201ccontested and complex.\u201d Id., para. 175. \u00a0The mining company examined alternatives to preserve the homestead site in place and concluded that none would be economically viable. \u00a0Id., paras. 118, 126. For that reason, the company proposed to relocate the homestead complex to allow the mine to be fully expanded.<\/p>\n
After holding hearings, collecting evidence and conducting a site visit, the IPC issued its decision and statement of reasons. The IPC found that the Ravensworth Homestead complex has high to exceptional heritage value and that relocation of the Homestead would have \u201csignificant and irreversible impacts on heritage.\u201d Id., para. 167, 169.\u00a0 The Commission also found that protection of the Homestead complex would promote inter-generational equity.\u00a0 Id., para. 170. \u00a0The IPC was not swayed by the likely economic and other benefits of the project, declaring that \u201cimpacts to historic heritage to be the primary reason for refusal of the Application.\u201d Id., para. 172. The Commission did not make specific findings as to Aboriginal heritage associated with the homestead site, noting that its findings on historical heritage were sufficient grounds to refuse the application.\u00a0 Id., para. 175. It did conclude, however, that the coal mine expansion would harm aboriginal cultural values. Id., para. 262(b). Ultimately, according to the IPC, the proposed coal mine expansion \u201cwould not achieve an appropriate balance between relevant environmental, economic and social considerations\u201d and would not be consistent with principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD). Id., para. 262(c). The likely benefits of the proposed mine expansion did not outweigh the likely impacts and thus the project was not in the public interest.\u00a0 Id.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A la mina Glendell en Nueva Gales del Sur se le neg\u00f3 un permiso gubernamental de expansi\u00f3n porque se recibieron m\u00e1s de 50 objeciones.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[278,86],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30102],"region":[644,540],"class_list":["post-19334","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-coal-mining","resource-topic-mining","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-coal","region-australia","region-pacific"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/19334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19334"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=19334"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=19334"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=19334"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=19334"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=19334"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}