AIRLY MINE SUBMISSIONS ARE BEING COLLATED AND WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON PLANNING WEBSITE SOON.
What the GOVERNMENT needs to realise is that the Capertee Valley Community are not anti-development. We just want to ensure that quality data is collected and analysed by good modelling methods to ensure the environs are looked after while mining takes place; the right conditions are placed in their license; the company is compliant with those conditions; and the Government is actively making sure the company is compliant.
The members of the public most directly impacted by the proposal are those represented by Capertee Valley Alliance and Capertee Valley Environment Group. The members living in the valley carry on business in the fields of eco tourism, farming, grazing, environmental conservation and heritage preservation. CVA submits that, in the various ways identified and discussed in the expert reports relied upon by CVA and others in their submissions, the proposals articulated in the EIS expose each of those activities, and the persons dependent upon them to unacceptable risks of environmental harm, with consequential unacceptable risks of social and economic harm.
CVA submits that, unless and until the proponent satisfies the requirements of the IESC guidelines, and satisfactorily addresses the issues articulated by Dr Broughton and Dr Wright. it cannot credibly contend that the Airly proposal does not constitute an unacceptable risk to water resources in the Capertee Valley. Dr Broughton's "conclusions" identify significant environmental risks posed by the Airly proposal, and support CVA's concerns with respect to the proponents integrity, and commitment to the protection of water resources upon which survival in the valley is dependent. Those concerns find further support in the evidence of Dr Wright.
There is submitted to be a demonstrated divide between the economic benefits asserted in the EIS, and those which have historically been generated.In addition to the various environmental, economic and social concerns articulated in the expert criticisms of the EIS, the department will be aware that the proponent has a demonstrated history of placing its mines in care and maintenance whenever it is considered economically advantageous to do so, without apparent regard to the social disruption, and financial hardship which its actions visit upon its workers, and the communities in which they live. Centennial announced its intentions to place another of its Lithgow mines in care and maintenance, resulting in the loss of in excess of 130 jobs.
CVA submits that Landholders in, and occupants of the Capertee Valley are owed both common law and statutory (Civil Liability Act, 2002, NSW, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 NSW, Water Management Act 2000 NSW, and Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Cth.) duties of care by the Department of Planning in the context of the department's assessment of and response to expert criticisms of the EIS. The risk of significant harm is readily foreseeable on any view of the submissions made to the department.
CVA submits that no statutory authority acting reasonably could fail to respond to the expert criticisms of the EIS referred to in CVA's submission, and other submissions to it with respect to the EIS. CVA will look to the department to compensate its members for and in respect of any damages suffered as a result of the department's failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent that harm.
For a full copy of CVA's submission including expert opinions, contact by email; firstname.lastname@example.org
phone 02 6379 7767
5th November 2014.