[email protected] Sent
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 6:03 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:Submission Builder - Mining SEPP Amendments
Paul Frost
Oakdale, 214 Wooleys Road
BYLONG NSW 2849
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run farm at Bylong in NSW and are already being screwed enough with your biased arbitration process.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
1 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul Frost
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 6:28 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:Submission Builder - Mining SEPP Amendments
Craig Wenke
RMB 203 Walla Walla
NSW 2659
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 700ha mixed family farm in the states south and father of two
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
2 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Craig Wenke
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 6:51 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:Submission Builder - Mining SEPP Amendments
David Knyvett
Broombee Coolah
NSW 2843
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the third generation farming in the Coolah valley running a cattle and cropping enterprise on 1200 hectares. I would like to pass this on to the fourth generation however I don't have the confidence in Australian governments, state and federal, commitment to the future of agriculture. The continual prioritizing of mining over agriculture is extremely short sighted. So, my children are being encouraged to enter the fields of building, graphic design and design and construction of armaments. Bugger agriculture. After all, who needs food?
I strongly urge you to abandon these disgraceful proposed amendments.
3 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
David Knyvett
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 7:16 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:Submission Builder - Mining SEPP Amendments
Philip Lavers
'Moonacres' 83 Ryans Lane
Fitzroy Falls NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I manager a fruit and vegetable farm in the Southern Highlands of NSW in the marginal State electorate of Kiama.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle
4 | P a g e consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Philip Lavers
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 7:25 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:Submission Builder - Mining SEPP Amendments
Cas Antunes
109 Hebron Road
Lower portland NSW 2756
5 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own 16 hectares where I grow various produce. I have 4 sons and intend on them benefiting from this natural environment. I have worked and sacrificed much on this land for the long term benefit of my sons, myself and my wife. Any mining or exploration in this natural environment would be a travesty to say the least. I therefore do not support such activities nor will I support a government that fails to legislate against such environmentally destructive practices. Our children and future generations must be taken under our care now.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Cas Antunes
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 7:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
6 | P a g e
Subject:Submission Builder - Mining SEPP Amendments
joe hughes
Belarabon stn
Cobar NSW 2835
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a husband and father of 4 young children on a organic 189,000 acre property producing prime lamb , cattle and goats
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
7 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
joe hughes
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:06 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Matthew Mckenzie
Loyola Coonamble
NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 3300ha mixed family farm at Coonamble in the states North West near Pilliga
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
8 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Mckenzie
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:08 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rick Gates
Burndoo Station Wilcannia
NSW 2836
Dear Premier
9 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We operate a 66000ha grazing property in western NSW.The underground water supply is vital to the sustainability of all farming.Please do not experiment with the state's water supply.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rick Gates
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
10 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:11 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Melinda & Philip Mills
"Warrah" Warrah Rd
Tottenham NSW 2873
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a 4250 Ha mixed family farming enterprise in Western NSW.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
11 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Melinda & Philip Mills
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:38 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Darryl Bartelen
Krui Plains 486 Foxes Lane
Moree NSW 2400
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife and I own a property in northern NSW which has now been in the family for 4 generations and we are having our 100th anniversary this year. Our four children share the same passion for agriculture as we do and the career paths they will be pursuing will be ag related. We pride ourselves on being the best custodians of our delicate and most valuable asset, our farm. The farm has the rich history of adapting our management techniques to address climate variability, ever
12 | P a g e increasing costs of production and the vagaries of political policy. Our family farm has demonstrated sound practices for 100 years which confirms the long term sustainability and resilience of agriculture. Whether it is mining or coal seam gas extraction their is a defined timeline as to the length the project will be productive. With no consideration for the past or future successes in agriculture short sighted policy is being forced onto a culture of people who not only support the national GDP but are instrumental in keeping the social fabric of rural communities intact. If the general public of the world are concerned about energy security it seems absurd to me to allow this finite resource to be spent when we should be preserving it. The other concern is how will this short sighted policy affect the health of the country and the people who have for generations appreciated and developed the capacity of the land for many generations to come.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Darryl Bartelen
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
13 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:42 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a 66 year old Grandfather with two of three sons who make a living from agriculture. I am also a subsistence farmer on an 82ha farm. My major concern is for my sons and my grandchildren. That concern relates firstly to an ever increasing infringement on Freehold property rights. I have been of the view that after years of severe adverse treatment by an unsympathetic Labor Govt riddled with corruption that we were entering a period when you as a Conservative coalition would take better care of all NSW residents and that Rural and Regional residents would not be overlooked or further disadvantaged. Sadly in this instance it appears that you are prepared to sacrifice us for purely economic gain. Whilst I understand that this government has taken charge of something of a mess It nonetheless is an imperative that you not further denigrate the rights of a section of the State community that has supported you by helping to bring you to power.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
14 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. In anticipation of an acceptance of the above mentioned principles of democratic rights I am Yours truly D A Woods
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:55 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Murray Brooker
673 Summer Hill Road
Vacy NSW 2421
Dear Premier
15 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife and I are poultry and beef cattle growers in the lower Hunter Valley. We are also irrigators on the Paterson River using the water for pasture and hay/silage production as well as poultry and stock water.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Murray Brooker
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
16 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:08 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John and Judith Hopmans
241 Segenhoe Road,
Aberdeen NSW 2336
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I run a lucerne hay and chaff farming business in the Upper Hunter Valley. We supply thoroughbred studs and horse trainers associated with the thoroughbred industry with feed. We have been farming in this area for 35 years and have raised three children here. We hope that our children will be able to continue working in this area for many years to come.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
17 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
We strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. We voted for your Liberal government because we felt that you were going to create certainty for the agricultural industries but instead feel that we have been betrayed by your government and that you have the same agendas as the previous Labour government. We feel that Governments are more concerned about the present and not about a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. When our environment is damaged forever what is left.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John and Judith Hopmans
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:28 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jon & Sarah Greer
Birrah Moree
NSW 2400
Dear Premier
18 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a 4000ha mixed farming enterprise in north west NSW. We are the fourth generation and hope that future generations to come will continue to build and develop this enterprise. Mining and agriculture are two very different industries and cannot coexist without very careful planning and management.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jon & Sarah Greer
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
19 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:31 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Michael Haire
90 Prices Lane Wee Waa
NSW 2388
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife and I run a small farming enterprise of about 900Ha comprised mostly of cropping, but also some beef cattle. I am a founding member of a local Landcare Group in order to promote profitable, sustainable practices for managing our land and the environment in which we (the local community)live and I find these changes the Government is suggesting frightening.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
20 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I find it hypocritical that a farmer cannot clear a single tree but a mining company can come in and level a complete forest.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Michael Haire
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:33 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
f robertson
Ormond st sutton forest
NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
21 | P a g e my husband and I run sheep cattle and grow berries in the southern highlands. We depend on the underground water through bores for stock water and irrigation. Please don't sell out to foreigners who do not give a toss about us.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
f robertson
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 10:18 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Owen Trevor-Jones
Hayters Hill Farm 20 Coopers Shoot Rd.
Byron Bay NSW 2481
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
22 | P a g e
This family run farming enterprise produces free range eggs and beef and pork products to the local Farmers Markets of the Far North Coast and services Cafes and Restaurants inByron Bay carrying ona tradition begun in the 1880s.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. When all the land is wasted and the rivers polluted will we be able to eat coal or drink gas?
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Owen Trevor-Jones
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 10:37 PM
23 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Eleanor Johnston
550 Ganmurra Rd Currawarna
NSW 2650
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
In partnership with my husband we run a 445Ha mixed family farming enterprise in the Riverina Area.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Eleanor Johnston
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 10:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
24 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Gordon Williams
Eastlake, Uralla
NSW 2358
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My family and I are long term farmers near Uralla in grazing country, and have been heavily involved in landcare and associated issues for many years, and are greatly concerned that mining issues seem to be taking priority over farming and the environment and we need to have real balance and long term strategic planning for these issues.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Williams
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 11:43 PM
25 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Paul Reardon
Tillararra Boorowa
NSW 2586
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We have a 1700 acre property & run sheep & cattle we have 5 children who all earn a living away from the property we are trying to have a windfarm built in the district and am frustrated at the governments atidude with the wind industry verses the mining industry's
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
26 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul Reardon
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 4:54 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mark and Leanne Hagar
Inveravon Old Junee
2652 NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a 960ha nuxed farming enterprise in the south west slopes. My son and daugher are 3rd generation farmers that what to contine farming my daughter loves the sheep my son loves cropping,
27 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mark and Leanne Hagar
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 5:24 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Michelle Holmden
28 | P a g e
Glendara Station BROKEN HILL
NSW 2880
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I run 25997ha sheep grazing property in Far Western New South Wales. Currently trying to survive in a hostile agricultural climate.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The importance of the worth of Australian agriculture needs to be re-assessed. I am asking that your Government make some positive moves towards the protection of farming and grazing and these amendments are anti- agriculture.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Michelle Holmden
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 5:30 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
29 | P a g e
Michelle Holmden
Glendara Station BROKEN HILL
NSW 2880
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I run 25997ha sheep grazing property in Far Western New South Wales. Currently trying to survive in a hostile agricultural climate.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
Australian produced food and fibre has been so devalued and disregarded in recent times. The importance of the worth of Australian agriculture needs to be re-assessed. I am asking that your Government make some positive moves towards the protection of farming and grazing and these amendments are anti-agriculture. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Michelle Holmden
30 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 6:54 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our business centres around a 2400 ha beef cattle breeding property in the southern Tablelands of NSW, and we are very concerned about changes to the State Environment Planning Policy as it relates to mining approvals. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past, reabilitating our farm land from gold mining activities, and we currently have prospecting happening on our farm.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
31 | P a g e development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Mining is a short term land use and can do significant damage to the environment, and I believe that other considerations, not just economics, should be given equal weight in the approvals process. Kind Regards Jonathan Hassall Braidwood
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:04 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Charlie Azzopardi
710 wimbourne RD
Manilla NSW 2346
Dear Premier
32 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am farmer Based in the New England region
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Charlie Azzopardi
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:17 AM
33 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jeremy R Nash
Jarramarumba, 1461 TYringham Rd
Bostobrick NSW 2453
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a grazing, orcharding and forestry business in one of the most beautiful and fauna diverse parts of NSW.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
34 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The whole purpose of any community that runs on the rule of law, is that the access to the law, and the weight given to the individual applicant, must be equal to any other applicant.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jeremy R Nash
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:21 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sherry Catt
908 Green Gully Rd
Mudgee NSW 2570
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in the Mudgee region on a small mixed farm. I have watched with great dismay and fear the actions of the mining industry on my local region.I feel that the mining industry takes precedence over all other activities and industries in our region. It has created a dual economy in the town,
35 | P a g e making it difficult to rent a house if you can't afford to pay mining rental rates and having work done by tradespeople, they are all geared to charge "mine" rates, even for domestic work. Please don't think that this doesn't happen, because the reality is that it does. For those of us not involved in the mining "boom" there is no boom for us.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. In the long term, after the hole in the ground is useless and exhausted what will there be left? A worthless, non productive hole in the ground and the land that once produced food for all to share will be also of little value. Farming is being at best under valued by our state & federal representatives. The disgraceful behavior by the previous Labor govt in the Bylong Valley shows how little politicians regard the lives and business's of farmers. I know this is not of the doing of the current govt, but the lack of protection given to farmers is a shame that will be a legacy for years to come. Food production should come first in the big picture as it is farmers who feed the worlds growing population and productive land should be protected for it's sustainable food production potential for future generations. I appeal to you as a representative of the people of NSW, that farming be given greater consideration in the planning for land use in NSW. Perhaps your legacy as a politician will be to protect farm land for generations to come, not make a quick buck to fill some budget shortfall in the short term. I hope this letter will be read, not just filed away and a generic response sent out to all who write in. Part of the problem with politicians is that very few of you live in the communities that you are making decisions about. Come & live with a farmer for a while, don't just sit in Sydney ( with full stomachs and comfortable houses, close to transport & schools ) and see what it's like to deal with the the seasons, weather, commodity prices and now the threat of mining. I write in hope that some one will really care about the plight of our food producers and the future of our land & water.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sherry Catt
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:29 AM
To: Danica Leys
36 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Lance Cousins
Hazel Park Bucca Rd
Nana Glen NSW 2450
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a cattle property & am strongly evolved in Rivercare & bush regeneration in the local area.
Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Lance Cousins
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
37 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:39 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Glenice O'Connor
4 Central Avenue
TAMWORTH NSW 2340
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 2400 acre mixed family farming enterprise in the State's North West.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Glenice O'Connor
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
38 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:40 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Cameron
57 Fox Valley Road
WAHROONGA NSW 2076
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a grains industry consultant of some 33 years and a fellow of the Agricultural Institute of Australia. In my various roles in the grains industry, I am in regular communication with a large number of scientists working in the NSW grains industry, NSW based grain producers and advisers.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
39 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Cameron
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:41 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Glenice O'Connor
4 Central Avenue
TAMWORTH NSW 2340
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 2400 acre mixed family farming enterprise in the State's North West.
40 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Glenice O'Connor
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:51 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John McRedmond
41 | P a g e
"Dardanella" Little River Rd
Tumut NSW 2720
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 320 acre beef cattle farm on the south west slopes.
Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John McRedmond
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:58 AM
To: Danica Leys
42 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Barbara Levick
PO Box 207
Tamworth NSW 2340
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My partner and I have a small olive grove on the outskirts of Tamworth. While we are personally not threatened by mining at present, my concern is for the long-term viability of food production, air and water quality throughout Australia. These will inevitably and irrevocably be adversely affected by the decisions currently being made by those whose only interest is short-term profit.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. What has already happened and what is proposed for the future is appalling to anyone who cares about a sustainable future and good stewardship of our country.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Levick
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
43 | P a g e
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 8:08 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Philip Spark
Tarcoola Back Nundle Road
Tamworth NSW 2340
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a third generation family farm at Tamworth. We are shocked to think that Barry O'Farrell can really be serious with what is proposed in the new SEPP. People want good planning that protects existing industries and the environment as the first priority. What is proposed will open the floodgates to development that will destroy what we have. People don't want rampant growth at any cost, what they want is sustainable growth that creates a better environment for native flora and fauna and future generations.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Philip Spark
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
44 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 8:11 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Arthur and Joan Gates
Heatherston, 99 Heatherston Rd,
Armidale NSW 2350
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a leading terminal sire breeding operation having bred a very high percentage of the top LAMBPLAN rams nationally. Some of our clients own property on the Liverpool plains. We wish to strongly support their concerns relating to the impact on their properties and the impact on the water sources in their areas and under their properties.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Arthur and Joan Gates
45 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 8:18 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Fred Croaker
Llancillo Backwater
Guyra NSW 2365
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We operate a cattle breeding farm on the northern tablelands,but grew up in the Hunter Valley to where my ancestors had moved from the Breeza Plains in the 1930's. I can not believe what I see in the Hunter with regards mining, and I cannot imagine what families have had to bear before and after being gobbled up a mining business which is only interested in money, and for some is a giant game of Lotto with borrowed money. Recently Governments have had to say "Sorry" for wrong decisions in the past.Let us not be too sure that prioritising mining for a short term gain is the way to go.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
46 | P a g e development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Fred Croaker
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 8:25 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Sutherland
Reserve Rd
Nowendoc NSW
Dear Premier
47 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have a small cattle fattening property of some 500ha which in conjunction my wife.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Sutherland
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 8:40 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Michelle Malt
43 Murphys Road Bean Creek via Old Bonalbo
NSW 2469
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
48 | P a g e
I run a small beef cattle farm and alpaca stud in the Northern Rivers. Our district has been depleted of quality grazing land following land buy-outs for tree plantations, which do not provide any jobs or make any contribution to the local community.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Michelle Malt
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:00 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
49 | P a g e
Tracey Murrell
'Cedar Creek' Gloucester Tops Rd
Gloucester Tops NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a grandmother raising my two granddaughters in Gloucester. They go to school in town at Gloucester Primary.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
50 | P a g e
Tracey Murrell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:17 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kerry Anderson
782 Glenwarrin Rd, ELANDS
NSW 2429
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an agriculturalist and mother of three children running a property on the Mid North Coast.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
51 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
The "economic" benefit to the State who accepts payment for the destruction of our environment, emitting huge amounts of carbon emissions in the process. On a global level we need to do as much as possible to ameliorate the situation. Giving foreign nationals the right the plunder our minerals is not the way to go. When we had mining that was Australian owned, not invading and denegrating the environment and local communities, we had a strong economy because of it. Now we have foreign nationals raping and plundering, leaving the filthy legacy behind for local community members and communities to clean up. It is rare to ever see true repatriation of the environment. Now you want to wreck the water, our most precious resource, as well. There is no life without water. There is already global issues with the way that China is overusing its underground water resources - and you allow foreign nationals to do this to us - come on. Find a better solution!
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kerry Anderson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:18 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Graeme Gibson
558 Wollombi Road
BROKE NSW 2330
52 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have been a grape grower in Broke for over 20 years. Over that period we have seen the Hunter Valley descend into a fossil fuel graveyard, a moonscape. Your Government has promised to exclude the grapegrowing areas from Coal Seam Methane Gas mining, but now you appear to be weakening and succumbing to the CSG mining interests and taking a "Swiss cheese" approach to the exclusion zones which were endorsed by Cabinet in February, 2013. This is the third proposed SEPP dealing with mining, and the one which is going to result in investment in the wine and wine tourism industries drying up putting at risk thousands of jobs.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments; to legislate to protect the wine growing regions of the Hunter Valley as similar regions have been protected in South Australia; to honour your pre-election and post election promises to give this protection; to consider the environment and our health, our towns and villages before making the size of the prize the principal consideration, rather than just a consideration.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Graeme Gibson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:34 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
53 | P a g e
Claire Fury
Blackthorn Hill Retreat 148 Old North Road
Pokolbin NSW 2320
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a successful awarding winning tourism and farming property in the heart of the Hunter Valley's wine country which I purchased shortly after arriving in Australia in 2004 to live permanently for a better life and prospects!!
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
54 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Claire Fury
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:43 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jessica Lowe and Nathan Kesteven
607 Whian Whian Road
Whian Whian NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a timber, beef cattle and wine enterprise in Northern NSW.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
55 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jessica Lowe and Nathan Kesteven
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:50 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Louise Nichols
352 Bell Road Lower Belford
NSW 2335
Dear Premier
56 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My family operate a small mixed farm at Lower Belford in the Hunter Valley running beef cattle and free range chickens. My three daughters are the fourth generation of their family to live on the farm. We want to be able to continue to operate that farming business without risk from mining and coal seam gas development. We also want agricultural land protected across the state from such development - there is a lot of land in this country but very few acres of it are productive.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.These amendments would make it easier in NSW to build a mine that start a brothel.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Louise Nichols
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:50 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Simon Guest
681 Mannus lake Rd. Tumbarumba
NSW 2653
57 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family work a mixed grazing & truffle farm on the western slopes of the Snowy mountains.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Simon Guest
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
58 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:55 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Josephine Wearing
385 Manton's Rd
Lawrence NSW 2460
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am mother, grandmother and great grandmother. My husband and I own farms in the Clarence Valley that adjoin significant wetlands and forests. We manage our land for its environmental values in the expectation that future generations will enjoy some of the advantages we had of natural and wild places and sustainable grazing operations.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Healthy and productive farmland and clean water and air are the most essential resources to all Australians now and in the future. On no account should those ESSENTIAL resources be jeopardised by mines and oil and gas wells. Such developments are always unsustainable and destructive, the economic benefits dubious, especially when so much of the wealth goes offshore and the huge costs: environmental, loss of sustainable productivity, loss of community and of amenity - those costs are borne by future generations. Is that the legacy you want for our grand-children and yours?
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
59 | P a g e
Josephine Wearing
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:58 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Josh Coy
65 Lock St
Blacktown NSW 2148
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a young person concerned about the environmental impact that coal powered power stations will have on my generation, and the generations after me.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
60 | P a g e development is frightening., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Josh Coy
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 10:04 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Michael Dale
Highdowns 880 Chandler Road
Armidale NSW 2350
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
61 | P a g e
I run a small sheep enterprise on the Northern Tablelands. It is with great regret that I see that this Government has no more regard for the long term future of country and the environment than the Labor Party had demonstrated.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Take a LONG term view for a change, instead of these shortsighted policies that all political parties in this Country have a habit of doing!
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Michael Dale
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 10:14 AM
62 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Paul O'Toole
65 Wollombi St
Broke NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a school teacher in the Hunter Valley. As such, I have the ear of a broad cross section of the community.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. You must look to the future and balance all decisions regarding mining approvals on a conscionable model. Not on rapacious greed.
63 | P a g e
We are coming out of the biggest mining boom ever...... and we are still broke..... Explain that ! And don't blame the other mob !
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul O'Toole
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 10:18 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
graham brown
127 Orchard rd. orange NSW 2800
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
our family have for 4 generations lived with exploration and mining operations at Cadia south of Orange-personally representing for some yrs. farming members to state mineral cc (now disbanded) the issue always was and continues to be lack of assessment that included environmental, social, long term sustainability options, and aquifer impacts.
64 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. our experience is that with proper assessment protocols mining and agriculture can coexist BUT these current changes further diminish the likely hood of that happening --the community WILL not tolerate this Govt approach.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
graham brown
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 10:48 AM
To: Danica Leys
65 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mrs Felicity Whibley
1540 Talga Lane
Moree NSW 2400
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dear Sir, A little bit about myself. I am an ordinary Australian, born Australian and proud to be Australian committed to ensuring a vibrant and viable life on our farm for us and our future generations. I recently wrote the attached when sickened to hear that yet again, Australian landholders rights were being undermined because someone realised they could get very rich very quick by manipulating laws and running over the underdog - who is not always but in many cases, a farmer trying to produce something to feed the rich bastard who is stabbing them in the back. Rather than waste this little rant on my office floor, I waste it by attaching it to this letter, as I have no doubt that it will never even be read or make any difference to opinion (because you cant make money out of it) and will indeed be heaped up in a massive pile of paper and treated with the same amount of respect that the entire Australian public receives when it comes to CSG and other mining activities - none. Unfortunately, the document exceeds character length so has not been copied in - lets see if anyone reads even this much to notice!
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality
66 | P a g e and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
Unless you are prepared to drink untreated water from CSG ponds, I strongly urge you to abandon all of the proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Felicity Whibley
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 10:51 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Prof John Quin
305 Finns Rd MENANGLE
NSW 2568
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
67 | P a g e
I run a stud Jersey dairy farm in the Camden Valley which has been severely disrupted by Coal Gas mining
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Prof John Quin
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 11:37 AM
To: Danica Leys
68 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mark Silm
269 Mulhollands Road Thirlmere
NSW 2572
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a 3rd generation fruit grower trying to earn a living off the land
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mark Silm
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 11:46 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
69 | P a g e
Robert Coldham
'Ben Vale' Emmaville
Emmaville NSW 2371
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We operate a 1500 ha mixed farming enterprise on the Northern Tablelands.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robert Coldham
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 11:47 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
70 | P a g e
Lyall and Joanne Ewin
275 Woodstock Rd Milton
NSW 2538
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a dairy farm of 400 acres milking about 160 cows. We are gravely concerned about the slapdash way the possible effects of fracking on the state's priceless and irreplaceable water tables, especially in the most fertile areas, is being considered. It is all very well for the mining interests to say there will be no problems, but when one does inevitably occur, it will be too late and the precious water supply will be lost from that area, repairs being impossible.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
71 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Lyall and Joanne Ewin
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 12:19 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sharyn Aiken
18 Crinoline Street
Orange NSW 2800
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am so concerned about my fellow NSW citizens who are affected by your legislation aimed to support mining companies particularly coal seam gas miners. At this time, I am not affected; I wanted to move out of Orange city to a small property, but am too concerned about how the NSW Government legislation which is against landowners, will damage property that I purchase.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about
72 | P a g e the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
My disappointment with Barry O'Farrell and his Government makes me very sad. I have supported a Liberal Government all my life, no longer can I make excuses for the promises broken from the last election. I know the National Party take donations from mining companies, is that why they have turned their back on landowners and farmers?
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sharyn Aiken
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 12:35 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Denis White
35-37 Bunnan Road
Bunnan NSW 2337
Dear Premier
73 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in the village of Bunnan which is under threat of CSG exploration. The village is surrounded by productive food and fibre operations with landowners who care for the land.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Denis White
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 12:46 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
aidan ricketts
159 murray scrub Rd Toonumbar
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
74 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a father of two and own a small rural property north west of Kyogle in the states north where we are currently threatened by toxic antinomy mine proposals.The people around here already feel disillusioned that this state government has abandoned rural communities and is captive to mining. these proposed amendments breach every promise the LNP made prior to the last state election and are an affront to democracy.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
aidan ricketts
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
75 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 12:51 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Doug Delmenico
5 Headford st
Finley NSW 2713
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
76 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Doug Delmenico
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 1:18 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Andrew O'Neill
"Wingle" 2170 Burrington Rd
Gurley NSW 2398
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a single 42 year old male that operates an agistment grazing, sharefarming business in the north of the state near Moree. I find it utterly incomprehensible that the government can be so short sighted in giving an almost unchallenged pass to mining with these amendments to the SEPP(Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries)2007.
77 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Andrew O'Neill
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 1:29 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Paul & Tracey Harris
78 | P a g e
40 inlet rd Bulga
NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My name is paul Harris from Bulga. Nsw we are a little community threatened by rio Tinto expansion .we the people of Bulga have fort and over the expansion so far and won,but then along came chris hartcher and jumped on the side of rio Tinto and change policies to Faver this miner.what chance have we got , dust noise and of courses our homes devalued because you lot faver the mine over pepole not what I would call quality of life for us or my grand kids..
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul & Tracey Harris
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 1:40 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
79 | P a g e
Gordon Windeyer
Highfield 17 Richards Lane
Joadja NSW 2575
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a property owner in the Mittagong area and have threats from coal mining and coal seam gas.
I believe the mining laws in NSW were not developed with the prospect that tens of thousands of people will be directly affected by CSG wells. Accordingly there is total imbalance between the access of mining explorers and landowners. Land values are damaged and unjust compensation is provided. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Windeyer
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 1:46 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
80 | P a g e
Sally Kennedy
44 Dettmann Ave Longueville
NSW 2066
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in the suburbs of Sydney but watch with interest legislation which impacts our rural communities. I believe the economic benefits of mining do not out-weigh protection of the land, water and environment. I am a liberal voter and believed Barry O'Farrel when he said he would protect and land and water, no ifs no buts.....but he has gone against his word.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sally Kennedy
81 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 1:54 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rebecca Wood
25 Taylor Street
Lakemba NSW 2195
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am currently undertaking a PhD in Science with the Centre for Environmental Sustainability, at the University of Technology, Sydney.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
82 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The further erosion of environmental protection laws in this state is unacceptable.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rebecca Wood
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 2:05 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Penne Clarke
Kayrunnera Station 1944 kayrunnera Road
Mutawintji NSW 2880
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
83 | P a g e
I am a partner with my husband in a western grazing enterprise. We run sheep and goats and graze 120,000 acres. I have two boys of school age and they are the 5th generation to be involved in our property. I have been adversely affected by mining exploration and the lack of regulation involved once licences are given. Many mining companies bully and coerce and outright lie when negotiating and continue to exclude owners from their own land and decisions.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I have seen first hand the negative impacts that mining can have on the emotional and financial well being on family members at a on farm base level. Activities have affected our children and mental health and have been disproportionately fair to the miners who have no soul and relationship with the ground as we do.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Penne Clarke
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 2:06 PM
To: Danica Leys
84 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Phillip Nelson
5 Haynes Avenue
Umina NSW 2257
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We have a grown family on the Central Coast and although our area is not presently at threat we all realise that CSG mining can destroy our country.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Phillip Nelson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 3:18 PM
To: Danica Leys
85 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a member of the Coonamble farming community.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.Somebody needs to stand up for the rights of Australian farmers. Not enough research has been undertaken in relation the to the adverse impacts these amendments will have on rual NSW, a minority group that's needs are often ignored.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
86 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 3:23 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
James Goldsmith
Compton 741 Floddenfield Rd Coonamble
NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family run a 8600 ha mixed farming and grazing property. I am the third generation on this property and my wife and I have three children.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Please consider the future generations of farmers and not just the short term bottom dollar.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
87 | P a g e
James Goldsmith
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 3:46 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Charles Horvath
1434 Wine Country Drive
North Rothbury NSW 2335
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife and I run 500 acres in the lower Hunter (Vineyard country) with both meat beef and agisted breeding cows. Have been here since 1981 and plan to stay.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
88 | P a g e development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Charles Horvath
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 3:51 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Bill Pye
Calga Coonamble
NSW
Dear Premier
89 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own and operate a 16000 ha property in the coonamble disreict that relies solely on underground bore water for its operation. It concerns me greatly that there is even consideration being made to drill in GAB this a pristine water resources that needs to be concerned for livestock and human not mines or CSG who along with damned state governmment are only interested in raping the land of its resources simply to fund its policies.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Bill Pye
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 4:07 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Michael Bowman
5 Forbesdale Close
Gloucester NSW 2422
Dear Premier
90 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on a 2ha property at Forbesdale,on the outskirts of Gloucester, less than 1km from the site of the proposed Rocky Hill Open Cut Mine. The EIS for this mine is currently "stuck" for no apparent reason in the planning department. The only plausible reason is that your Government has put all such proposals on a "holding pattern" until such time as you can force through this legislation and limit the legitimate right of NSW citizens like myself to appeal the descision.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. this legislation does nothing to ensure the project is benefit to the community, the state or indeed to the nation as a whole, it simply provides succour to the applicants and fattens the purses of the overseas investors and owners. All of this at the expense of countless communities within the state who simply will not have a voice.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
91 | P a g e
Michael Bowman
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 4:19 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Elaine Smith
85 Bay Road,
Bolton Point NSW 2283
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of 2 and resident of Lake Macquarie NSW.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Elaine Smith
92 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 5:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jane Stevenson
235 Curricabark Rd
Gloucester NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retired pharmacist ... I have come from a lifetime spent in Sydney to live in the beautiful Gloucester valley. When I came here eight years ago many in the community were deeply concerned that the state government had given approval to open cut coal mining. Despite being told that the government would never let mining destroy our valley, the mines have been given the go-ahead to expand both their area of mining and their hours of operation. Coal seam gas extraction has also been allowed access to peoples' land despite the owners' objections. ALWAYS we were told that the government would NEVER allow a mine to operate unless it did so within strict environmental guidelines. In my opinion Barry O'Farrell is the sleaziest of them all ... he got himself elected by promising all sorts of wonderful things and he has back-tracked time and again. He said he would repeal Part 3A and did so only to replace it with an even more unfair system that is only Part 3A by another name. Now, because the people of Bulga managed to have a win for the environment in court, O'Farrell is proposing to amend the law so that the environment is virtually overlooked in the haste and greed to make the most of every dollar. I find the man and his policies to be despicable and I will never vote for him or his party .... I used to be a staunch Liberal voter, but never again. At a time when we are being told that climate change and global warming are even more serious than previously thought, this man and his cronies would rather sell out to the miners and to hell with the
93 | P a g e future of our land, and the future of our children and grandchildren. Barry O'Farrell and his crew are beneath contempt and are no better than the Ian Macdonalds of this world.It was Ian Macdonald, amongst others, who sold the Gloucester Valley out to the miners. It is now owned by Chinese interests to whom 99% of the coal mined in this valley is sent. So much for protecting the citizens of the country .... the land has been sold from under our feet and I and others will not forget this betrayal of trust, ever.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments, and to put your support behind renewable energy. Withdraw the subsidies and freebies from the coal industry and insist that it stand on its own feet. Give the subsidies and freebies to the renewable energy people instead, and start leading this state out of the obsolete coal age into a sustainable future
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jane Stevenson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
94 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 6:00 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Don McKenzie
Cresline Coonamble`
NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a mixed farming enterprise in the north west. My greatest concern is water , for without water there is no life so there for water is the greatest asset known to mankind.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Don McKenzie
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
95 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 6:00 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Brett Guthrey
194 Cobbittty Rd Cobbitty
NSW 2570
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an orchardist based in the Sydney Basin, my business and life depend on water aquifers.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
96 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Brett Guthrey
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 6:46 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Scott Sledge
50 Gabal R$oad
Lillian Rock NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dear Premier, There is no "Certainty " in business, and certainly none in allowing dangerous mijning practices such as fracking. Give the landholder the right to say NO. Invest instead in renewable energy projects. If the current government continues down this path of subservience to mining companies (mostly owned by foreign shareholders) you risk greater civil disobedience from
97 | P a g e
Australian landholders and concerned citizens. I am greatly concerned and want an urgent reply. Yours sincerely, Scott Sledge
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. BTW congrats on the decision to provide seatbelts on rural school buses!
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Scott Sledge
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:04 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kipp Wood
11 Florida Ave
Woy Woy NSW 2256
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
98 | P a g e
I am a father of two from NSW's central coast.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kipp Wood
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 7:21 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John George Kaye
350 Merriwa Road
99 | P a g e
Denman NSW 2328
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have lived in the Upper Hunter since 1997 where I established a vineyard and vine nursery. My family and I are opposed to SEPP changes that weaken protection for farming land, farmers and the environment in favour of coal and CSG extraction.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. These proposed amendments open the door for permanent damage to the Hunter Valley.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
100 | P a g e
John George Kaye
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 8:23 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Edward Robinson
124 Jacks rd Gloucester
NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a small beef cattle enterprise on the Avon river just south of Gloucester township.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality
101 | P a g e and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.and start to look after the food producing regions. the mining era is finishing ,protect the arable that is left before it is to late.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Edward Robinson
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 9:31 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rael Barberini- Hodges
Dorrigo
NSW 2453
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
102 | P a g e
I have lived on a farm in the town in Dorrigo NSW my entire life . I am currently studying a doubles degree in Environmental science and Marine science .
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
the Mid North coast / Northern rivers is home to endangered species of Fauna and Flora as well as some of the best quality farming productions in Australia. The rivers that are at high risk of contamination sustains a population of 250.000 people , wild life and farm lands. Not to mention numerous parts of these regions are home to protected species and world heritage sites . On a professional level due to my study I am very concerned what this mine will do the surrounding wild life and communities , I am also concerned due to the fact that China limited it's production of Antimony because of it's high toxicity level causing mass pollution and casualties . I am deeply concerned for the land in which I grew up in.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rael Barberini- Hodges
103 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 10:45 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Prue Cullen
Wangoola
Coonamble NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My Name is Prue Cullen , I produce grass fed black angus beef in the prime agricultural area of Coonamble NSW.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Prue Cullen
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
104 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 10:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
prue cullen wangoola coonamble NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Prue Cullen
105 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
prue cullen
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 9:47 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Pam Goldsmith
Avonleigh, P.O.Box 35
Coonamble NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
As a retired grandmother looking for a quieter life only to find that I'm now fighting to preserve the future of the farming enterprise that has been in the family for five generations.The governments and mining giants have treated landowners and rural communites with utter contempt.
106 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.All governments have been saying that we have to increase food production to feed the increasing population.CSG mining can not work beside or with agriculture. Please do not allow our water and land to be contaminated as this will be the death nell of inland NSW.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Pam Goldsmith
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 10:13 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
107 | P a g e
s and m murray nabiac coonamble
NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
partnership grain and cattle over 22000acres would like to leave our land as we found it for the grandkids.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
s and m murray
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 10:39 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
108 | P a g e
Jill Blackman
Gundair 1137 Gundea Road
Tooraweenah NSW 2831
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family partnership run a 2554 hectare grazing enterprise. We are reliant on underground and river water to water our cattle and sheep and our household relys on this water as well. We have a Mental Health Respite Homestead (Gifted freely to guests) on our property as well, where carers guests come for a retreat to rest and reguvinate. The amenity of our property is vital to this process. We have already seen expoloration not far from our boundary for which we received no notification that it was going to occur. We have no trust in the current process which is filled with promises that are never delivered. Trust in our polatitions is ZERO to represent our interest. Your cannot drink Gas or eat Coal.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. that are one sided. The benefits are shorterm only and the majority of the gas or coal is exported out of our country. There are many
109 | P a g e more jobs that can be created in the field of renewable energy in rural and regional Australia than miners degrading our environment, destroying food and fibre production, dislocation of farming families and the distruction of communities. Much more thought needs to go into these amendments. If this doesn't happen, the anger that is already building in 'The Bush" will increase three fold. Please get it right this time for the sake of our grandchildren. We wish to leave a positive legasy not a distructive one.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jill Blackman
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 12:14 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Nimbin Environment Centre
54 Cullen Street
Nimbin NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
110 | P a g e
We care for the environment and and disseminate information to others about the environment.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Nimbin Environment Centre
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 12:28 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
111 | P a g e
Peter Tyler
STROUND NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a father of two kids with a property in the vicinity of Stroud, NSW. I am very concerned that in Australia landholders do not have rights to the minerals and gas under their properties, unlike in the USA and UK. In fact, I think it is a monstrous breach of human rights.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and start listening to the people of NSW. We are sick and tired of mining corrupting our community lives and politics with a revolving door of influence and peddling between Labor and Liberal politicians and business in NSW.
112 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Peter Tyler
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 1:27 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ken
Bunyon 10 Carson's Siding Rd
Cullen Bullen NSW 2790
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of
113 | P a g e developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ken
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 1:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Amanda J Furze
483 Tuntable Ck RD The Channon
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
114 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a small eco rural tourism business on 20 acres near The Channon. We grow our own fruit and veg as mush as possible and have a spring that feeds the system. The pollutants from mining inevitably get into the water table and will eventually effect all ground water. Quite apart from environmental concerns on country and the effect on tourism, my guests and visitors, I am most concerned because my daughter will be bringing up her children here. It is common knowledge that the inevitable leaking of methane from gas mining has a negative effect on the health of young children.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Well over 80% of people in our area are totally against any mining activities in the region..... especially Coal Seam Gas ming. It is grossly negligent of a democratic government to so wittingly, over ride the wishes of the people.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Amanda J Furze
115 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 2:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John and mary Thirlwall
2257 Glen Davis Road Capertee Valley
NSW 2846
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We own a rural property in the Capertee valley where we have cattle and olives and 4 cottages which are rented out for tourism. The valley is renowned for being the second largest canyon in the world after the Grand Canyon. It has been listed for classification under the World Heritage banner. It is renowned as a significant bird watching area, an area of immense biodiversity, including flora, fauna and geological formations, not found anywhere else. It is an area growing in notoriety for all the above reasons. Already there is 1 mine in the valley - Centennials @ Airlie Mt. This mine has been passed by the Federal and State Govts. For extension. Neither the EIS or a Water Impact Assesment have been submitted. Hopefully not more of Mt. Penny's legislation or lack thereof !
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners,
116 | P a g e environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. It is truly a disgrace the imbalance we have created ( or more specifically YOU have created), with mining in this state, in particular coal, when the only obvious gain is short term financial advantage. I am not against mining completely. I have worked in the industry all my professional life - over 30 years. It is just that we have lost the balance completely, sacrificing everything worthwhile and vital to our personal and environmental health, for pure greed. All a result of lack of intelligent planning and foresight. You only have to drive around the country esp. the Hunter Valley to see the destruction. It is mind blowing. Is this the legacy we are leaving for generations to come. A legacy of quick time greed at the expense of a sustainable plan and vision for the future, and support for other essential areas like agriculture, water, tourism, biodiversity and health. It should be obvious, without clean water and environment ....we have nothing ! Surely these should be of the highest priority and everything else secondary. It is time to consider how we can get out of mining the high pollutant - COAL and move to renewables and cleaner energy ie nuclear. Less people have died in the nuclear industry than the coal mining. We must have a vision for the future and our children's children and start planning and implementing some decent policies and principles that don't just fill the coffers of government and the big mining magnets
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John and mary Thirlwall
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
117 | P a g e
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 2:54 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Anna Schlunke
6 Haddon Crescent
Revesby NSW 2212
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I grew up near Temora, which is where my father still lives. My parents bought bush to stop it from being bulldozed. I don't just care about the land there, I love it and the thought of a mining company coming along and destroying the place is utterly horrendous to me.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
118 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and concentrate instead on policies that allow people in country areas to make a truly sustainable living - that would show you care about the people of NSW (rather than political donors).
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Anna Schlunke
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 2:56 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rowan Partnership (Dirk, Marea and Brian
Forest View 11306 Gwydir Highway
Delungra NSW 2403
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 1900ha.mixed farming property in the north west of NSW. My parteners and I are totally against the proposed changes to the mining act,we feel they already have to much advantage over the individual's or small business because of their political connections and available resorses.
119 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rowan Partnership (Dirk, Marea and Brian
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 3:37 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sue Yarrow
491 Bakers Rd Byangum
NSW 2484
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I have a 3o Ha property where we have had 4000 mango trees along with passion fruit, custard apples, papaws and proteas. I am a mother of 2 and a grand mother of 2.
120 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and reconsider mining developments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sue Yarrow
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 5:16 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Heather Drayton
121 | P a g e
370 Old cob of corn rd
Kyogle NSW 2474
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of 4 and a grandmother of 4 and no spring chicken, I have had plenty of time to consider what is really important to us humans and short term monetary gains over long term polluted water and damaged farming lands does not cut it. As I am a member of the Northern Rivers community and a living smack bang in the middle of proposed CSG mine area, need I add the most beautiful area of Australia and some of the most productive grazing land that we have in Australia, I have first hand knowledge of the underground water systems. The rock formation here is (almost vertical) such that the (underground water) springs are forced up at pressure to spill out on the tops of the hills and maintain the permanent creek flows. Any gas fracking could contaminate large aquifers and cause massive poisoning to pasture, creeks and rivers flowing into the sea, most of the coastal towns from Byron to Ballina along the coast get their drinking water from this area. How anyone could consider doing such a thing is beyond belief. SO
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. And see that the health and long term sustainability of our communities is much more important than any short term gain that the sale of these minerals can do. Ask yourself, when your grandchildren ask you - What did you do to keep the environment safe for all mankind and the animals we inhabit it with? What will you say?... I hope it is not. Nah I sold it out for a quick buck.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Heather Drayton
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
122 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 5:39 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jim Edwards-Margaret Seydel
3B Booyong Rd Clunes
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We live in rural north east NSW & consider that keeping our water, land & air as free as possible from any form of pollution is far more important than any filthy coal or gas that may be able to be mined in any way, from our productive lands here.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
123 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jim Edwards-Margaret Seydel
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 6:09 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sandra Davis
138 Terreel Road
Wards River NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
124 | P a g e
I run a small beef cattle breeding property in Wards River, in the Gloucester Valley. I have built this property up over thirty years, on my own. I have spent quite a considerable amount of money and physical effort in improving what was a run-down dairy, originally part of the Australian Agricultural Company holding.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I sent a small submission to the Department's website, but feel this submission clearly states my views on the matter
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sandra Davis
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 6:10 PM
125 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Patricia Gotz
154 Cawongla Road
Rock Valley NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I believe in the importance of mining but also to give landowners and communities a possibility to have their say as it is with the present regulation
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
126 | P a g e
Patricia Gotz
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 6:19 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Liz Stops
750 Manifold Rd
Bentley NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in the Northern Rivers of NSW where the local population has voted overwhelmingly against industrialisation of the landscape by mining ventures.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
127 | P a g e
Liz Stops
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 7:02 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
j.w cabibbo lot 1 ross lane tintenbar
NSW 2478
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
i run an organic vineyard an orchard we also have livestock.chemical interference in food an water will make sick people who will overload all health departments the revenue earned will never repair the permanent damage caused.use an old fashion set of scales to view the situation people of all walks in life oppose this polluting activity.your days in government are numbered your are selling out your own supporter's me being one of them!
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of
128 | P a g e developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
j.w cabibbo
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 7:11 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Williamson
PO Box 314
Cessnock NSW 2325
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
129 | P a g e
I am an apirist in the Hunter Valley that lives in Pokolbin Mountain State Forest where i produce the pure honey from that flora. Our mountain, like many mountains in this district all have sping water. We have so far resisted the exploration of Coal Seam Gas in this area as the water is all interconnected via underwater aquaducts which no one has mapped and do not fully understand. We are the owners of this land, the keepers of the land and we are accountable for the decisions that we make here that will effect future generations. We are hesitant and not willing to take such huge risks with our water for such a short term gain.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Williamson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
130 | P a g e
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 9:16 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Norman Sage
736 Waukivory Rd
GLOUCESTER NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a resident of beautiful Gloucester. Some eight years ago my wife and I chose to live here as there was no extractive industry other than a 'boutique' coal mine with a limited life span. Life should be good but Gloucester, as well as many other districts in NSW, is under attack from an increasingly selfish and greedy mining sector.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
Further, I care about the psychological and emotional stress being suffered by many of my immediate friends and acquaintances undoubtedly due to the uncertainty of their future lifestyle,
131 | P a g e their quiet enjoyment of life. I respectfully but strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Norman Sage
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013 10:29 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Bev Maunsell
79 Louisa Rd Birchgrove
NSW 2041
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I'm a retired inner city resident who met the GRIP members when they were protesting outside Parliament House, I was with the Greens although I'm not a member. I joined GRIP and distribute relevant info to my friends and email the Premier on a regular basis. I've been interested in all aspects of the environment since I first read David Suzuki back in the 80's
132 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Giving the rights to the future of all Australians, to foreign Multi National Mining companies, over those who have vested interests in our farmlands and food resources, lacks vision for this nations future.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Bev Maunsell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 12:31 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NSW
133 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 5:34 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Christine Pearson
10 Craven Close Gloucester
NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
134 | P a g e
I am a recently retired resident of Gloucester and have been a loyal supporter of liberal politics, both State and Federal, for the whole of my voting life. I am distressed and amazed at the line you and the NSW Government are taking with respect to what appears to be a destructive and non recoverable course of action with Mining and also Gas exploration along the beautiful East Coast of our State. The proposed Amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy outlined herein, seem certain to exacerbate an already parlous situation which takes no account of the dire consequences to land, food and water issues in particular! Good health surely is more important than money in the bank!
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Mr.O'Farrell, can you not see that ultimately, you and your own family members will also bear the grief and regret at the very poor and shortsighted decisions you and your party have made and continue to make, even in the face of logical opposition argument from Australians who do care?
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Christine Pearson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 6:16 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Lesley Robinson
P.O.Box 8024 Marks Point
Marks Point NSW
135 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a concerned N.S.W. resident mother of 2 and grandmother of 4. I have witnessed far to much lack of consultation with land holders regarding real concerns.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Lesley Robinson
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 8:24 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Darren Holmes
1370 Keerrong road The Channon
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
136 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We have 66 acres mixed family farm organic, we are semi - self sufficient ,we have 3 children,I find it very hard to believe any conscious government would try to put theses ridiculous amendment s forward in an election year
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Darren Holmes
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
137 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 8:45 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Boz Bican
12/55 Church St
Wollongong NSW 2500
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Long time friend of very competent farmers - Ray Cheers, Mitch Bianchini, Tom Groat, Michael Bourke. I share their concerns. Polluted water and damaged farms promise a bleak future for all of us. Healthy rural communities are priceless to our country.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Boz Bican
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
138 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 9:09 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Paul McLisky
76 Coolamon Scenic Drive
Coorabell NSW 2479
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have a coffee plantation with 20,000 coffee trees and have difficulty in understanding why our government would sacrifice our future and our water resources for short term gain, a lot of which will benefit overseas companies and countries rather than our own. Please consider the following:
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
139 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul McLisky
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 9:34 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ian Napier
530 Hermitage Rd Pokolbin
NSW 2320
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
140 | P a g e
I have a 30 acre vineyard and make wine in Pokolbin. We are in the proposed Viticulture CIC exclusion zone, but haven't seen this gazetted yet.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ian Napier
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 9:40 AM
To: Danica Leys
141 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sharyn Munro
Po Box 647
Singleton NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a grandmother and writer, who has watched the appalling damage in the Hunter Valley, to the health of our people, our water and our land. I have seen villages disappear, made unliveable. My grandchildren in Singleton must breathe the air in what is officially one of the most polluted areas in Australia, from coal and coal power.
I am shocked that this government is so blatantly pushing these changes to even further tip the balance towards allowing mining and gas projects to harm people and places; you are going to make it legal! I consider these changes to be immoral; it is your role to care for the people and our longterm resources, not for short term private business above all else. These companies will pull out as and when it suits their shareholders. Thermal coalmines do not have an investment future; ask the World Bank. Please start planning for future sustainable revenue and jobs now and allow no more longterm damage!I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sharyn Munro
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
142 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:41 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Patricia White
9 Harvestview Place
Fairy Hill NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in a rural area in the Northern Rivers.
I am very aware of the preciousness and importance of farming to this area and the whole of the country. Where else can we get good healthy fresh food? We depend on the land, and once it's ruined there is no turning back. Are we supposed to starve or rely only on imported inferior quality produce which may or may not be contaminated in some form? Common sense tells us the answer to these questions. Money does not provide nourishment for people.I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Patricia White
143 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:44 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ms Diane O'Mara
2 Little Belmore St
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a seventy year old pensioner from Gulgong, a heritage listed town where I have lived for 34 years. I am deeply disturbed about the effects the massive expansion of coal mining will have on our ability to grow our own food and on our water security, not to mention our health from noise and dust impacts.
I am deeply distressed about the effects of climate change which are already happening and at a faster rate than was first thought. I am most disturbed at the thought of the weather patterns from excessive greenhouse gases we are leaving for our grandchildren. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
144 | P a g e
Ms Diane O'Mara
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:54 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ms Diane O'Mara
2 Little Belmore St
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a seventy year old pensioner from Gulgong, a heritage listed town where I have lived for 34 years. I am deeply disturbed about the effects the massive expansion of coal mining will have on our ability to grow our own food and on our water security, not to mention our health from noise and dust impacts.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
145 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I am deeply disturbed by the changes in our climate, which are happening much faster than anticipated,and which are caused to some extent at least by our excessive greenhouse emissions. I am fearful of the weather patterns and the climate instabilities and catastrophes we are leaving our grandchildren
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ms Diane O'Mara
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 11:29 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Felicity Cahill c/o PO
Drake NSW 2469
146 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own 100 acres of bush at Drake, and my dughter also owns land here. I have lived in the Northern Rivers/Upper Clarence for 25 years, and have been involved in Local Landcare groups, now threatened by funding cutbacks from the government, while destructive mining companies are encouraged to go ahead, wiping out wildlife and native environment as they feel like.This must not be allowed to go ahead if we wish our grandchildren to have any idea of what Australia WAS in our young days.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. My question is, where do we get our food from, when mining companies have overridden the rights of Australian citizens, and turned our land into a slag pile with poisoned water, after carting the resources overseas, not even for OUR benefit!
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Felicity Cahill
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 2:08 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
147 | P a g e
Oscar Pearse
Kambodia
Moree NSW 2400
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
As the 6th generation to manage our family property I care deeply about the long term sustainability of the land and environment in which we carry out our food and fibre production. I plan crops and practices based not only on this years profitability, but also the long term productivity of the land, over decades and generations. This philosophy, combined with the use of the best current knowledge to enhance the land, has allowed our family to stay on this country. I simply do not believe that the managers and shareholders in extractive industries have the same long term commitment to our region and to our local environment. This lack of concern is greater the size of the extractive practice, as larger multinational funds invest in NSW extractive industries purely for profit and without the same genuine regard for the land that farmers hold. Given this the concept of 'significance' should slow or halt developments, not facilitate and enhance their speed of development.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments in the interests of the people of the state today, but also the farmers of tomorrow and the generations to come. Your legacy as leader will be defined by your choice to protect our food producing assets or mar them for years to come. History will judge your actions over the long term as much as rural constituencies will in the short.
148 | P a g e
Please abandon these short term focussed amendments and work to make genuine reforms to protect farming land.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Oscar Pearse
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 2:46 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
paul reynolds
5 panorama rd lismore n.s.w
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in town and I support farmers in their fight to stop mining companies destroying their land.without farmers we don't eat.farmlands before gaslands
149 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.and protect our air land and water
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
paul reynolds
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 3:12 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mrs Bronwyn Holloway
"Saradon " 49 maddens lane
Wards River NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
On our Beef farm we have Five neighbouring properties four have been sold to the Duralie coal mine. We have our house shaken by blasts, the noise especially during the night is stopping us from sleeping our nerves are shot my asthma is chronic I have to see a specialist regularly we have wanted to sell for some time as we are pensioners who want to retire and they don,t want our place Who, is going to buy us.
150 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Bronwyn Holloway
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 3:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
151 | P a g e
Brendan Shoebridge
PO Box 174
Alstonville NSW 2477
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a very concerned father of two from Alstonville on the Northern Rivers. Once again our future hangs in the balance. Who would have ever thought it in this country? However the community's resistance is strengthening daily.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. These attempts to destroy Australian regional life have gone far enough and the NSW population is fed up with having such an insidious cloud hanging over our heads when we know full well that the only sustainable path open to us is in renewable. Why is the Government so unwilling to secure a clean green energy future?
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
152 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Brendan Shoebridge
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 5:09 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rosemary Nankivell
Wimboyne 5030 Bundella Road
Quirindi NSW 2343
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 2500ha mixed farming enterprise near Quirindi on the Liverpool Plains. My family work this property and we have done so for several generations. My property is currently under an Exploration License for coal seam gas. The Namoi Water Study has shown very clearly that the water under my property will be impacted upon by both the proposed Shenhua and BHP mines. The government must act in the best interests of the people and so far all we have seen are governments kowtowing to the mining industries. We are a significant resource. If I use the method used by the mining companies to determine the jobs created, my property creates 134 jobs alone for those directly employed on the property. This figure does not take into account the jobs created by agriculture as a flow on effect. Our land will be here for many generations - not just a short term 30 year mine or even less given the prices of thermal coal. \
153 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Please think in the long term and also consider the health of our communities and livestock.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rosemary Nankivell
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 6:09 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
154 | P a g e
Roger & Kerrie Eather
"Haystack" 799 Haystack Road
Bellata NSW 2397
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are a mixed family farming enterprise between Narrabri & Moree on the black soils of the North West. We have just purchased an adjoining property to make us a more productive business, (but also carrying a big debt). We have dedicated our life to farming and looking after our land for future generations and food security. We would not be able to carry cattle without groundwater.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Roger & Kerrie Eather
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 6:17 PM
To: Danica Leys
155 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kerrie Eather
"Dixie"
Bellata NSW 2397
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We have been farming in the Moree/Narrabri area for 40 years. We are a mixed family farm which relies on groundwater to run cattle on our grassland. We have always looked after our land which is fragile with a view to its ability to grow food in the future.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
156 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kerrie Eather
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 6:26 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robert and Denise Deane
56 Hiawatha Rd Minnie Water
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Living in the beautiful Clarence Valley with my family of 5 children and grandchildren, we depend on clean air and water to ensure our existence. My family and grandchildren are farming in the Grafton area and other family dependent on associated industries and fishing which are placed directly at risk by this invasive gas mining business. I have serios concerns about the proposed changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 and the release of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013 (“the SEPP”). These amendments favour mining development over farming yet again. I hold that the agricultural industry in NSW is
157 | P a g e more significant to the people of this country than toxic mining and the NSW Government is placing our food bowls at risk.
At a time when we all are well aware, water is our most precious resource world wide, the fossil fuel era is coming to an end, and many countries are already facing food shortages, it is imperative that our agricultural areas are not sacrificed for mining. Your favouritism to mining calls into question your commitment to rural and urban Australians who depend on long term sustainable farming.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robert and Denise Deane
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 7:03 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Narelle Jarvis
195 Pinchin Road Goolmangar
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
158 | P a g e
I live in a beautiful green valley just outside Lismore in northern New South Wales with one adult son. My immediate neighbours are the grazing cattle of my farming landlord. My landlord and his family live adjacent. I love this place and the rural simplicity of living. Fresh air, fresh water. No pollution. I have a small vegie patch that I tend, mostly on weekends as I work full-time at the local library. We have wallabies, goannas and a myriad of birds passing through the properties. This rural life should not be disturbed.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Mining companies should not have priority over farmers, the community and the environment. There is an obvious community opposition to open-cut mining and coal seam gas mining. The rights of land-owners (and their tenants) should not be squashed for the sake of quick profit for a few. The proposed amendments are imbalanced.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Narelle Jarvis
159 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 7:24 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mark Seiffert
1/3 Newberry Parade Brunswick Heads
NSW 2483
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a librarian living on the Far North Coast of NSW, currently under threat from the encroachment of CSG mining
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
160 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mark Seiffert
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 7:33 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Danae Rice-Finlayson
38 Napier St Goonellabah
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
161 | P a g e
I am a mother of four and Grandmother of one living in the bounteous foodbowl of Lismore and surrounding districts.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Danae Rice-Finlayson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 8:12 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jan brennan
1201 Cawongla Rd
Larnook NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am developing a 20h farm forestry property in the very productive northern rivers.
162 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Food is the new oil and land is the new gold. Consider why are nations around the world trying to buy up productive land wherever they can and you are proposing to destroy it. Wake up to the changed world.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jan brennan
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 8:26 PM
To: Danica Leys
163 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Johanna Evans
1047 Green Pigeon Rd Green Pigeon via Kyogle NSW 2474
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a community member who is witnessing one of the most unjust times in history. I am a mother of two and own a small acreage on the north coast and my government is attempting to sell the land out from underneath the feet of the community with no social licence, regard for the environment or foresight.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
164 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Do not turn our country into the worlds mine for short term gain. Our food bowls rely upon your good judgement. Surely water & food supply for Australians are more important than overseas owned interests.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Johanna Evans
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 9:21 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robyn Whale
2 Harms St Toowoomba
QLD 4350
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I was raised on a small farm on the Darling Downs. I now have 7 grandchildren and worry about their future.
165 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robyn Whale
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 9:33 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
166 | P a g e
Louise Somerville
6 Oliver Street
East Lismore NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a 49 year-old retired Library Technician who worked for 28 years for Richmond-Tweed Regional Library. My family of for children aged 21, 19, twins aged 11 and my husband snd I live in regional Australia on the beautiful, green Northern Rivers. I grew up in Clunes on a farm and have a good understanding of the necessity of clean water and good soil to provide food security for our nation.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
Due to the reckless expansion into pristine regions including food-growing regions, wildlife habitats, the Great Barrier Reef and backyards of good Australian people who pay YOUR wages...I became a Knitting Nanna Against Gas when the group formed in June last year. We knit and bear witness to the appalling lack of thought and bad judgement of mining companies. they simply cannot be trusted. The mighty dollar will always come before the health of a nation. I am also a member of the CWA and they are not happy with the way farming families have been abandoned. strongly urge you
167 | P a g e to abandon these proposed amendments and do what we pay you to do. Protect Australian people not foreign-owned corporations. Thank you. .
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Louise Somerville
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:12 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Darcy Drayton
370 Old Cob O Corn Rd
Kyogle NSW 2474
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a resident of Kyogle. At 55 years of age I have never before felt strongly enough about environmental degradation to participate in demonstrations or blockades until CSG drilling began in our area. It is clear that the NSW state government will impose their will upon local shires with total disregard for the wishes of locals or the environment.
168 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I believe these proposed amendments should be ditched and I take this opportunity to speak up for the environment. It is high time state and federal governments prioritise the environment over revenue.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Darcy Drayton
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:19 PM
To: Danica Leys
169 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Phil Herbert
649 Quia Station Road Gunnedah
NSW 2380
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a third generation farmer on the Liverpool Plains.As stewards of the land we operate in a sustainable manner with a view to the future.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
170 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Phil Herbert
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Michele Cullen
176 Kennedy Drive
Tweed Heads NSW 2485
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retired Stock and Meat Inspector (Animal Industries - QDPI), Stock Inspector (QRSPCA)and property owner.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of
171 | P a g e developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Michele Cullen
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:49 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
jason sheaff
206 bent st grafton nsw NSW 2460
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
172 | P a g e
I live in the township of Grafton and we recently had an exploration drill rig near by at Glenugie, I have seen the way that this industry can multiply rapidly and I have concerns for my drinking water and that of my friends out near where the rig was, not much to ask , I just want my kids and future grandkids to be able to turn on a tap and be able to drink the water coming out of it. Without it being 'treated'. clean water is clean water, recycled water is a dangerous guess.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Drinking water is drinking water, if one of these companies makes a mistake or an accident , we won't have that anymore, I don't believe there has been enough research into the effects of recycled water to risk it being imposed onto people.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
jason sheaff
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
173 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:49 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rache Lea
1730 Clarence Way
COPMANHURST NSW 2460
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
174 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rache Lea
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:54 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robert Orkney
1/148A Brown Street
Armidale NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a single parent with qualifications in agriculture and resource management
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle
175 | P a g e consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robert Orkney
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:55 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Vivianne Cockburn
30 Brook St
DAPTO NSW 2530
176 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a single mother of 2 boys and carer for 2 young children in the Illawarra.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Vivianne Cockburn
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 11:19 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ken Brown
34 Kooda Road, MSF 2002, MSF 2002,
INVERGOWRIE NSW 2350
177 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retired local government employee living on 7 acres west of Armidale.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. These changes are distinctly opposite to the promises the LNP Government gave prior to the last State election. It is essential that the proposed changes are abandoned.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ken Brown
178 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 12:01 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
pamela wickham
36 fitzroy street grafton nsw
NSW 2460
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
179 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
pamela wickham
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 4:34 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
julie lyford
2 Queen Street
Gloucester NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have been a local government councilor for 17 years and am a former Mayor of Gloucester Shire Council. My involvement with the community is extensive and I have seen first hand what the resources extraction expansion has done to community cohesion, agricultural confidence and the devastation of losing farms and homes. Add to this the overwhelming health issues, uncertainty of tenure and the need to reside in a liveable space, this new planning policy is a direct opposite to
180 | P a g e what should be happening. It is profound in the governments utter disregard of where we should be heading for the future with food and water security, climate change and healthy places to live.What ever happened to your core promises before election? There is no trust now in your processes or your understanding of the needs of the people you serve.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.For the sake of continuing dialogue with your communities, I also urge you to undertake true community consultation, come and hear real people in their places and see first hand what they have to deal with every day - health issues, uncertainty,loss of faith in government, the list is endless.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
julie lyford
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 5:13 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Cathy McNulty
464 Vandervort Hill Rd
Unadilla, New York USA 13849
Dear Premier
181 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of five daughters and we live on a 200 acre farm in New York State. Exactly what is happening in your country is what is happening here. Our land water rich and green is being chopped up by pipeline companies Cabot Williams in our case, hoping to drill or store or process methane gas here. The water they promise will be tested near our well but what of the future? Will my daughter's daughter live here or down the valley? What about wild creatures who don't get their water from a well?
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The whole world is watching our countries to see if people matter to their governments. If our leaders have the ability to see a future without hydrocarbons, because there is no future without clean air and water.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Cathy McNulty
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 5:39 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mary-Ellen Peters
14 Morgo Street
URUNGA NSW 2455
182 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of three grown children and I was married in the Hunter Valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mary-Ellen Peters
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
183 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 6:21 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
C. Eddy
Yamba NSW 2464
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a pensioner, living in Northern Rivers, NSW
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
184 | P a g e
I would remind you that your overriding responsibility is to the Electorate of New South Wales, not the interests of mining companies. Your arrogance is becoming outrageous and the people are noticing. Who is your real boss?
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
C. Eddy
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 7:55 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Anne Thompson
90 Johnston Road, Clunes
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
185 | P a g e
I am a 75 year old grandmother of 6 grandchildren and live on a small cattle property near Lismore in Northern NSW. and I am writing to you about the proposed amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries 2007).
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. They are already causing great concern and distress in the Northern Rivers Communities. We are worried about the future for our children and grandchildren; for the future of farming in Australia (particularly in view of accepted concern about food security. We are also most concerned about the effects on our water, which is our most precious commodity. Besides all of that, we do not want to industrialise the beautiful Northern Rivers and ruin the tourist industry. Yours sincerely, Mrs. Anne Thompson.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Anne Thompson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:15 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
B P and B J Green
186 | P a g e
25 Rawson Street
ABERDARE NSW 2325
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are developing a lifestyle environment on our 10 acre block at 653 Hermitage Road, Pokolbin and intend to live on it when our house is refurbished and supplied with power from the grid.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
The Hunter Valley has a long history of agriculture and depends on the quality of its air and water. The viticulture industry is world class and should be encouraged to continue attracting international visitors and the financial benefits they bring to the rest of the country. Mining can be quite detrimental to this industry. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
B P and B J Green
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
187 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:25 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ms Lyn Stewart
4 Red Gum Rd
Barrington NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retired person living in the beautiful Gloucester Valley. I have been very concerned over how your government has ignored the concerns of residents in this valley about the expansion of coal mining and coal seam gas extraction.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. You cannot, in all seriousness, present these amendments as being in the best interest of New South Wales residents, let alone the best interest of residents of the Gloucester Valley.
188 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ms Lyn Stewart
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:29 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mary-Ellen Peters
14 Morgo Street
URUNGA NSW 2455
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of three grown children and I was married in the Hunter Valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has
189 | P a g e taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mary-Ellen Peters
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:42 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
mark rick
1 pendara crescent lismore NSW 2480
190 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a Lismore resident seeing the effects and misinformation of the mining happening in Casino. I am very aware of the effects the mining industry has on the community and that elected officials are obliged to serve the wishes of the community, not the interests of big business.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
mark rick
191 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:42 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Trevor Thompson
186 Sweetwater Road
Rothbury NSW 2335
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the owner of a 40 hectare property in the wine region of Pokolbin. We have 14 acres under vine and have full Australian Organic Certification. The property is managed on biodynamic principles. This is a long term investment in good quality safe produce and improving the environment. Maintaining the environmental welfare of the overall region is critical to the welfare and success of these initiatives and individual businesses in the region, as well as maintaining and developing the economic benefits of agriculture and tourism for the region.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations
192 | P a g e and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to recognise the far-reaching and divisive implications of such a carte blanche approach as recently announced and to revert to a truly balanced approach and abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Trevor Thompson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:54 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Angela Froud
254 Dunns Rd
Doubtful Creek NSW 2470
Dear Premier
193 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on a rural property which runs beef cattle. I am a high school Science teacher and I have also taught Agriculture. I grow fruit and vegetables primarily for my family.I enjoy bushwalking and observing native wildlife, birdlife and plants. I volunteer in the local environment centre.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
The majority of people in my local community, and the region, strongly and actively oppose invasive mining. The proposed amendments to the SEPP will cause further unrest in my community.I do not want my investment of time and effort in my property to be devalued by proximity of mining. My land values will fall, and it is part of my retirement plan. I do not want to be forced to live in an industrialised landscape. Australia's greatest resources are its ability to produce uncontaminated meat and vegetables, clean, uncontaminated water, and unique flora and fauna. To jeopardise our fragile ecosystems and farming areas is madness. Short sighted decisions now will leave an abysmal legacy for future generations to deal with. We are seeing regulations that protect the environment, often achieved by the struggles of citizens, eroded in a time when there should be increased protection for farmland and forests put in place.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
194 | P a g e
Angela Froud
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 9:05 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
anthony campbell
456 hermitage road pokolbin
2320 NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a grapegrower in the Hunter Valley and sell grapes and make and sell quality wine on our 40ha property
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
195 | P a g e development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
anthony campbell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 9:42 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Richard Becker
270 O'Connors Road
Pokolbin NSW 2320
Dear Premier
196 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My family operates a vineyard in the Hunter Valley and has done for nearly 20 years. Our livelihood depends on the Valley remaining a viable viticultural and tourist region.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and honour your pre-election promise..
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Richard Becker
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:28 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Chris Searle
595 Hermitage Road
Pokolbin NSW 2320
Dear Premier
197 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a resident of Pokolbin, Hunter Valley and both live and work in this iconic wine & tourism area. I chose to live here because of the natural beauty and tranquility of the area and have vested my retirement savings into building a sustainable home here in the valley. I now feel that all the hard work and committment I have made to maintaining this area are to be undermined and the future of our water courses threatened which in turn jeopardise the agricultural nature of the area, the economic advantages enjoyed from primary tourism and the landscape.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Chris Searle
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
198 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:29 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Margie Pye
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN My husband and I run a 40,000acre mixed farming enterprise in the NW of the State. The farm has been in the family for nearly a century and we would like future generations of the Pye family to continue to farm at Calga. We are major suppliers of grain and livestock to the food market. We are very concerned about the threat of Coal and CSG Mining on the supply of food to feed communities and cities but also deeply concerned about the irreparably damage that is already occurring to prime agricultural land that is being swallowed up by the resources industry. Our farm is also threatened by proposed mining of CSG as we currently have an exploration licence covering much of our Shire Council taken out by SANTOS. They are delaying operations due to the public objection but still plan to continue as they say they have ‘Best Mining Practices’ but continue to carry out ‘Bad Practices’
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
199 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I would like the government to have some foresight into preserving our land as they are only looking at the short term gain and not the negative long term effects of the resources industry on our food supply, farming land, The Great Artesian Basin and the health of our communities;
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Margie Pye
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:34 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Griselda Browne
662 Bowman River Road, via Gloucester
NSW 2422
200 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a grandmother who has lived in the Gloucester district for 37 years. I am deeply concerned about the effects that mining of both gas and coal is having on the community as well as the land here.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Griselda Browne
201 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:36 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
pamela campbell
456 hermitage rd pokolbin
2320 NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We produce wine grapes for sale and produce boutique wine for sale
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when
202 | P a g e assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
pamela campbell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:41 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kerryl Russell
545 Hermitage Rd
Pokolbin NSW 2320
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
203 | P a g e
My partner and I run a family accommodation business in Pokolbin amid a beautiful wine growing area. This is not only important to us as our income source but my children and grandchildren recreate here as do so many other Australians and overseas visitors. This area should be left to continue as an important wine growing district without the threat of mining destroying this.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kerryl Russell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:58 AM
204 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kylie Kelly
322 West Lanitza rd Lanitza
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My farming business is aquaculture and organic cropping. Our property in the Clarence Valley has had organic certification for over 20 years. We have moved to the area four years ago as our dream lifestyle and to raise our children in a healthy clean environment.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
205 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kylie Kelly
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 11:04 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Madeleine Adams
Lambrook
Mullaley NSW 2379
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the wife of William Adams and we run a mixed farming enterprise at Mullaley on the Liverpool Plains. The Adams have farmed this land since 1946 always having future generations in mind. Always aiming to leave the land and underground water systems in pristine condition so that future generations can benefit from this amazingly productive,fertile plain. This is not the first time we have written about our grave concerns for our underground water systems in this area if coal seam gas miners are allowed to drill.
206 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and think beyond the immediate dollar value. As a government you are responsible not only for the present generation but for those of the future. It is the fertile land of areas such as the Liverpool Plains that will provide healthy food for future generations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Madeleine Adams
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 11:30 AM
To: Danica Leys
207 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Amanda Glasson
'Kanyini' Dubbo Rd
COONAMBLE NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the saleyards manager for Coonamble Regional Livestock Market and have come from a mixed farming family. It is devestating to me that my daughter through these policies may not have the opportunity to be on the land in our beautiful district. Mining is short term gain for LONG TERM DETRIMENT. KEEP OUR LAND AND WATER FOR FOOD PRODUCTION. Governments need to invest in alternate energy.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. KEEP OUR LAND AND WATER FOR FOOD PRODUCTION. Governments need to invest in alternate energy.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Amanda Glasson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
208 | P a g e
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 11:38 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Margaret May
1075 Afterlee Road
Eden Creek NSW 2474
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My partner and I are running a pecan farm in Northern NSW which relies on groundwater to produce a commercial crop. We also run some cattle on our property who also rely on spring fed dams. I have serious concerns for the quality of the water table and aquifers if mining is allowed to proceed in farming areas. My community has already comprehensively rejected CSG mining in our district and we will not be forced to endure what has happened to families in Western Qld who have had their farms ruined by big mining companies.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
209 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The people of the Northern Rivers have comprehensively rejected any expansion of mining into our region.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Margaret May
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 12:17 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Hamparsum
Drayton Pullaming Rd
Breeza NSW 2381
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
210 | P a g e
Our family has an intensive irrigation property on the Liverpool Plains south of Gunnedah. We are a large agribusiness and can not believe that the NSW Government fails to acknowledge ALL the assets of the state. The changing of the SEPP tries to rank mineral assets over all other assets. This is fundamentally flawed and fails to recognise that assets such as WATER and productive Agricultural soils are also ASSETS of the state and should be managed carefully. The notion that mineral assets should be developed at all costs does not take into account the positive economic contribution that assets such as water and soil provide to the state year in year out.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
We strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Should the NSW Government push ahead with the SEPP amendments they will be out of step with best practice. The financial and accounting segments have taken rigorous steps to enhance environmental reporting and increase transparency on environmental accountability. This has come from investors and the community demanding higher standards in their activities and providing good leadership and governance. Why is the NSW Government out of step and out of the game? Why is the NSW Government regressing back to the rip, tear and bust attitudes of the unsustainable 1980's? There are better ways to achieve balanced development for our fantastic state and these SEPP changes are not the pathway.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
211 | P a g e
John Hamparsum
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 12:42 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mrs. Victoria Hamilton
ERROLDOON
WEE WAA NSW 2388
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Goodmorning Premier O'Farrell, I write with utmost sincerity and also with the utmost compunction as to the complete unsuitability of the proposed government ammendments to the SEPP 2007. I am a member of a farming and grazing family who have lived and breathed agriculture and delivered, may I add, to this nations prosperity since 1864. There is none so wise,as the people who rely solely on their own hands, their own self gleaned knowledge and their own direct responsibility to run their business operation of agriculture, as farmers. If the vast majority of farmers in the North West of NSW have said "no" to the inundation (still allowed) of the non- renewable coal and coal seam gas, green house gas producing industries. Then you must follow through that the government must be held accountable and legally liable for any damage to any freehold existing business, that has been forced to comply with a government directive, which gives weight to a mining industry , over and above that of already established enterprise ie indivual farm enterprises. The legalities of such a move will be the subject of much inquiry and may I say, extreme undue pressure, on the very people in agriculture, whom you recently spoke so highly of, in your address to the NSW Farmers Conference in Chatswood a few short weeks ago and at which I was a delegate for the Wee Waa District Council.
212 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed ammendments. I, along with most members of the agriculture industry, do not accept that there has been any where near the required jurisprudence of the ammendments your government seeks and the true nature of the threat to our ability to legally continue our business. regards, Victoria Hamilton
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mrs. Victoria Hamilton
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 12:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
213 | P a g e
Raylee Keleher
96 Mistletoe Lane
Pokolbin NSW 2320
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a Guest House on 7 acres in Pokolbin
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
214 | P a g e
Raylee Keleher
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 1:06 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Frances Grant
Granja 155 Middlebrook Road
MARLEE NSW 2429
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own three beef cattle properties - two in Marlee near Wingham, NSW and a large property in Cobark about 50 km from Gloucester, NSW.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
215 | P a g e development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I believe that what Parliament is proposing is a plan which is not supported by the vast majority of the NSW electorate particularly in regional communities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Frances Grant
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 2:18 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Madeleine Deveson
Essendon VIC 3040
Dear Premier
216 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Madeleine Deveson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 5:20 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Frances Parsons
Surrenah Park Coonamble
NSW 2829
217 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I are retired farmers and have six grandchildren and we want everything to do with CSG to be 100% certain that there will be no damage done to the water table and that all the chemicals used for CSG and any mining are safe and will not cause bad health and sickness.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Frances Parsons
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
218 | P a g e
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 5:32 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Stewart Ewen
688 Milbrodale Rd Broke
NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in the Hunter Valley and own a vineyard and run Angus cattle , we have been in the Valley for some 15 years and have experienced the expansion of mining to the determent of community and the Wine Tourism industry . The Wine Tourism Industry employs 35,000 people in this region compared to less than 12,000 employed by mining so...
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
219 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Stewart Ewen
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 5:45 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Arthur Burns
287 Scotts Flat Road Singleton
NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife and I have for many years owned and operated a commercial dairy farm at Singleton having first purchased the property in 1972. During that time we have witnessed the continued growth of mining in this district and appreciated that this industry certainly altered the economy of the district
220 | P a g e and in the early stages of development most companies were prepared to work with the rural industries but the rapid expansion over recent years has led to complete destruction of many local communities, damage and destruction of some of the best alluvial lands in the world and complete loss of high yielding shallow aquifers. The complete neglect by government in continuing to favour mining and ignore the long term environmental and social effects on this area.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The recent policy decisions and recommendations such as proposed in these ammendments, the recent changes to Water Sharing Plans giving mining exemption from the cease to pump rules governing all other water users and the recent approvals for further destruction of Hunter alluvials by open cut mining makes an absolute mockery of the governments election promises to protect prime agricultural lands and the waste of time and energy for those who participated in the development of the strategic regional land use planning documents. To now suggest that mining should get even further prioritisation is ludicrous. Recent development approved such as Ashton. Rio Tinto Warkworth and Rio Tinto Carrington West admit that the aquifers destroyed will not recharge for at least 200 years, if ever, whilst some of these developments are only operating for 6 years. It is time to rethink long term priorities and ensure no further approvals be given for open cut mining on the Hunter alluvials.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
221 | P a g e
Arthur Burns
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 6:09 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rhona MacLeod
PO Box 322
Minto NSW 2566
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a Grandmother, an RN and a qualified, experienced Occupational Health Nurse. I come from a farming background in Scotland, and my childhood experiences imbued me with a love of the land and nature. I have, therefore, had a long-standing strong interest in the environment and of our responsibility to act carefully and responsibly in our stewardship role of 'Mother Earth'.
I implore you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
222 | P a g e
Rhona MacLeod
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 6:36 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Greg Walsh
PO Box 201 Jamberoo
NSW 2533
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family conducts a bef farming opertaion on the NSW South Coast & NSW Southern Tablelands
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
223 | P a g e
Greg Walsh
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 6:43 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robert Watt
Greywest 2 2701 Newell Hwy
Alectown NSW 2870
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 3102ha property North of Parkes in Central West NSW. I am 30 years old, married and have a 13 month old son. We run a family farm business which has continued for over 60years, in one form or another. We work the land resource with an ethic of long term sustainability.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations
224 | P a g e and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robert Watt
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 6:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Elizabeth Bartlett
58 Avon Valley Rd
Gloucester NSW 2422
Dear Premier
225 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a resident of Gloucester and live on the outskirts of the town. I have lived in the area for 16 years and am very concerned about the encroaching mines. Fortunately I have moved from Wards River where my old neighbours tell me the noise and vibrations from Duralie Mine is now constant.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I dread the potential dislocation of my community which will be inevitable as friends are driven off their land. As a single pensioner my networks are very important to me and moving to a new area and needing to make new friends is not a happy or easy prospect when nearing 70yrs. The long term effects of such rampant mining cannot be predicted therefore it is surely the ethical thing to do, to stop raping the land for short term financial gain and put time and money into renewable clean energy sources. The masses clearly support this direction, given that approximately 10% of the population are now using solar power. Get ahead of the game - have the guts to make some truly worthwhile decisions.zsb
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
226 | P a g e
Elizabeth Bartlett
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 6:49 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Elizabeth Bartlett
58 Avon Valley Rd
Gloucester NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a resident of Gloucester and live on the outskirts of the town. I have lived in the area for 16 years and am very concerned about the encroaching mines. Fortunately I have moved from Wards River where my old neighbours tell me the noise and vibrations from Duralie Mine is now constant.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations
227 | P a g e and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I dread the potential dislocation of my community which will be inevitable as friends are driven off their land. As a single pensioner my networks are very important to me and moving to a new area and needing to make new friends is not a happy or easy prospect when nearing 70yrs. The long term effects of such rampant mining cannot be predicted therefore it is surely the ethical thing to do, to stop raping the land for short term financial gain and put time and money into renewable clean energy sources. The masses clearly support this direction, given that approximately 10% of the population are now using solar power. Get ahead of the game - have the guts to make some truly worthwhile decisions.zsb
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Elizabeth Bartlett
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 7:30 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sonya Gibbons
702 Keerrong RD
Keerrong NSW 2480
228 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother and a nurse working in the local cancer care unit. I live in the beautiful northern Rivers on a hobby farm and have devoted much of my life the last 3 years to educate others re the unconventional gas industry. We had a drilling rig turn up out of the blue in direct view of from our deck, we were never considered, informed, relevant. I understand how this industry works now and believe we need to fight for our lives otherwise we will become collateral damage in a potential wasteland. We need the government to listen to the people not only the interests of the destructive mining industry.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. They are wrong in so many ways. Everybody looses in the long term if you go ahead
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
229 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Sonya Gibbons
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 7:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ron Campey
Llara Narrabri
NSW 2390
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own about 2000 ha on the N/E side of Narrabri which is covered by a PEL covered by Santos and a Coal lease as well . The NSW government says we need employment (a throw away line employed by all politicians ) and that the government needs the money ( another throw away line as no mater how much money a Govrnment gets it will spend more than it gets). As for CSG we import all our gas ( a Santos spin on that we get our gas from another State , we don't import it). Bass Straight has enough gas for at least 200 years and Santos owns a slice of the project . Country people will stand united against these projects time will tell
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the
230 | P a g e economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Lets see good direction not be led by the nose by Coal And CSG company's
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ron Campey
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:02 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Paul Brennan
231 | P a g e
PO Box 9055
Rock valley NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a consultant in plant breeding, the application of biotechnology to plant breeding and plant variety intellectual property. I have also worked as a wheat breeder. I have consulted in Australia and a many overseas countries.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul Brennan
232 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:11 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dennise Goodsell
2 Cordini St. Tucabia
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a concerned mother and grand mother who does'nt like where we seem to heading. Money is the reason for all this madness,it is like a cancer spreading across the land. Is there mining going on in your neck of the woods Mr. Farell ????
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state
233 | P a g e and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Dennise Goodsell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:14 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Anne Stanton
102 Jubilee St
Townsend NSW 2463
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
234 | P a g e
I am a member of my local Landcare group in the Clarence Valley, and a concerned environmentalist.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Anne Stanton
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:17 PM
To: Danica Leys
235 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sally Ritchie
24 Forsters Bay Rd
Narooma NSW 2546
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an oysterfarmer on the Wagonga Inlet in Southern NSW. I am passionate about preserving water quality and would see mining interests as a serious threat to the integrity of our business. As my husband and I transition to retirement and our son continues in the business I hope sane heads will prevail on this matter
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Small business in rural ares are just as important as mining companies because we stay after they have made a mess and moved on
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sally Ritchie
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:29 PM
236 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Damian & Penelope Haire
"Argyle"
Tambar Springs NSW 2381
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a mixed family farming enterprise on the Liverpool Plains and are raising 3 young children.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
237 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Damian & Penelope Haire
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 8:50 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Murray Armstrong
"Glencairn"
Wingen NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
At 66 I suppose you could say I am semi-retired, but I can't afford that luxury so I continue to find what work is available. My wife and I live on 4 acres in this delightful part of NSW and we worry about the seemingly inexorable encroachment of coal mining & CSG over valuable agricultural land. In this concern we cannot believe the duplicity of this government which we expected would respect and protect the rights of farmers and citizens in rural communities.
238 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. As a former member of the National Party and branch Chair, I am totally disillusioned by the attitude of both sides of Government in Australia. I now generally prefer to vote for Independent candidates who have the strength of character to stand up for their beliefs and constituents.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Murray Armstrong
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 9:04 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Malcolm Macnaughton
42 Argyle st
239 | P a g e
Barrington NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I retired to this area with my wife 19 years ago and until recently ran an orchid nursery. The changes that have been inflicted on the Gloucester area over this time and are continuing have been distressing and indicate a lack of interest by Government in the people it represents .
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
240 | P a g e
Malcolm Macnaughton
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 9:22 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Leanne Davis
535 Upper Cherry Tree Rd Upper Mongogarie
NSW 2470
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live half an hour from Casino, the "Beef Capital" in northern NSW. All of my neighbours are cattle producers and I would like to one day produce vegetables on a commercial scale on the property I share with my partner and his parents. I spend my nights wondering if I should give up my goal and try to find some corner of this huge country that is safe from the threat of being dug up as a mine, or damaged or made unliveable by the effects of mining. Does farming have any significance for Australia? We hear so much talk of the importance of food security for the nation's future, the huge economic potential for us to become 'the food bowl of Asia' and so on.... Where has the notion of balance gone to? Agriculture can provide jobs for future generations - but not if we've dug up the whole country for once-off resource sales to foreign nations who aren't as short sighted as we.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Is Australia now a democracy in name only? People are angry and resentful at the high-handed way that the government appears to consider the welfare of the people can be subjugated to the welfare of the mining industry's free- for-all with our land.
241 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Leanne Davis
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:29 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robin Kitching
76 Maso Road
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
242 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Robin Kitching
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:34 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Wayne McKay
Bengana Billimari
NSW 2804
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a farmer impacted by proposed gas infrastructure. We have been engaged with the pipeline company for 3 years and they refuse to provide us with a detailed design or meet our design criteria. The below reinforces the policy of companies to avoid any long term investment in impact minimization or spending on better environmental or social outcomes in the vicinity of their projects.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., I also care about the
243 | P a g e social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Wayne McKay
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:43 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robin Kitching
76 Maso Road
Repentance Creek NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
244 | P a g e
I live on a 4ha property and am a beekeeper. I am very concerned for the future of agriculture in NSW as well as in the rest of Australia.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments as once the artesian basin is polluted, by the chemicals used by the mining industry when fracking for coal seam gas, it cannot be undone. Why risk our water supplies when other means of producing energy are available without the high risk of polluting our waterways.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robin Kitching
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 10:54 PM
245 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Meredith Stanton
209 Wiriri Rd
Clouds Creek NSW 2453
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on the Dorrigo Plateau and manage a 25ha forest for biodiversity conservation which forms part of the Solitary to Guy Fawkes Bio-Link, west of Coffs Harbour. My community is made up of farming, timber and tourist enterprises and the Dorrigo Plateau forms a large part of the Clarence catchment, which provides drinking water to Grafton and Coffs Harbour and numerous riverside and coastal towns.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
246 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments which prioritise the economic interests of mining above environmental and social concerns. Such an amendment ignores the inherent value of the existing farming enterprises and the hardworking communities in regional areas who value and protect our water, biodiversity and productive farmland. My small community is currently facing the threat of gold mining in the Clarence catchments, with a recently approved exploration lease covering 300 square km's both sides of the Blicks River (EL 8100 & EL 6465 - Anchor Resources). A gold or antimony mine, were it to be approved, in our high rainfall area would risk contamination of the Clarence River system and threaten the drinking water of some 80,000 people, including the upper catchments and tributaries which support some of the richest biodiversity in NE NSW i.e. NSW public forests and World Heritage National Parks and reserves supporting numerous endangered species, including freshwater cod, frog species, marsupials on the threatened species list including gliders, koalas, rock wallabies etc. One major spill from a holding pond, during an extreme weather event, could pollute our water catchment for hundreds of years, yet these proposed amendments would risk this in the interests of government revenue. I strongly question the appalling logic that has written such amendments and ask that they be abandoned in the interests of healthy and productive regional communities in the NSW catchments. A planning system that has approved mineral exploration licences in this area is also questionable, given the inherent risks to the Clarence catchment and its tributaries born out by the contamination of the Macleay River from a spill at the Hillgrove mine in 2010 and also the closure of the Timbarra Gold mine in 2001 after a heavy rain event in 2001 contaminated the Mann River system, a tributary of the Clarence River. My farming community does not want mining to be a part of the landscape, we love what we have and value clean water, air and biodiverse, forested landscapes. Please do not favour mining revenue over healthy regional communities, improve the balance in the approvals system to protect our land and water for future generations to maintain sustainable livelihoods. sincerely,
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Meredith Stanton
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 11:04 PM
To: Danica Leys
247 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Frances Minogue
"Netherby" Barmedman
2671 NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own a property where I run cattle and grow crops,and am disappointed with the State government which is not supporting farmers as we had expected. I worked hard to put the Liberal National Party in power and now wonder if it is really representing country people.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.Remember that this Government is supposed to represent landholders who are the farmers that care for their land.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Frances Minogue
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 11:08 PM
248 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Julia DesBrosses
3565 KYOGLE RD
MT BURRELL NSW 2484
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an agricultural consultant (organic, sustainable) based near Kyogle, NSW. I am involved with several local farmers' markets. The wide valleys in this area hold some of the regions most fertile prime agricultural land and small farmers are experimenting with more sustainable forms of agriculture. They are holding firm to avoid the multitude of pressures from CSG tricksters, Chinese and other foreign investors, and intend to stay and sustainably farm their land well into the future This area is part of the Northern Rivers regional food bowl and must stay that way. Water, soil and air quality are integral to our healthy lifestyle and fundamental in providing city dwellers with decent healthy food, when they visit and purchase an incredible range of our diverse local organic foods. We have worked hard as a rural farming community to develop healthy lifestyle and livelihood alternatives that have a sound, ethical and sustainable basis.
This intended SEPP is simply another outrageous step by bureaucrats to 'get their hands on the goodies'. A blatant attempt to bypass the community and dishonour their wishes to remain free of high risk enterprises on theirs and neighbouring lands. Tough luck guys! Time for the Mining Cabal to roll over and die!! Learn from the recent ICAC outcomes. The old corrupt mining hey-days are over. Sorry to break it to you. Time for the miners to find another industry career path that requires a heart and some soulful retrospection. Leave the coal in the hole and the oil in the ground... we can develop a fossil free future for us all. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
249 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Julia DesBrosses
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013 11:39 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Geoffrey Symonds
"Silsoe" Willow Tree
NSW 2339
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a third generation farmer on the edge of the Liverpool Plains. my son has recently returned home and wishes to continue farming.
Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
250 | P a g e
I am happy to try and work within SEPP guidelines but I don't believe there is consistency in government attitudes to the interests of environmental protection. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Geoffrey Symonds
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 1:03 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jennifer Lewis
764 Ewingar Road
Ewingar NSW 2469
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
251 | P a g e
My partner and I run a modest herd of 160 Angus cross breeders . We live in the northern rivers of NSW in the Clarance River valley. I have lived in this area for over thirty years and on the land all my life. This mining invasion is the biggest threat that farming Australia has ever had to deal with, far worse than any drought , flood or fire, and I have had to deal with all of those. The stress of the potential mining invasion has lead many farmers to becoming "activists ".
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Lewis
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 7:59 AM
252 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Melissa Ellem
128 blackbutt rd kungala NSW 2460
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a very concerned member of the public.I'm a mother of three young children based in The Clarence Valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
253 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Melissa Ellem
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 8:02 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Nicole Vassar
763 Hermitage Road
Pokolbin NSW 2320
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We live and run a 25 acre self-contained tourist accoommodation property in the Hunter Valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle
254 | P a g e consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Nicole Vassar
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 8:35 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Michael Franklin
Franklins Rd
Glenugie NSW 2460
255 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a fifth generation farmer in the Clarence Valley. I own and run a mixed farming enterprise consisting of farm forestry, beef cattle, and horse breeding. Farming is my only livelihood, as it was for my father and his father before him.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments, as they are in blatant disregard for the welfare and wishes of the community to which these resources ultimately belong.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Michael Franklin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
256 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 8:41 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Matthew Onions
1114 Carrick Road Goulburn
NSW 2580
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a farmer running a large property of 4000ha's with a young family in the States South.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
257 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Onions
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 8:49 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mary Taylor
Beaumah 1938 Millthorpe Rd
Shadforth NSW 2800
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a property near Orange, in the Central West of NSW. We produce prime lambs and beef cattle to feed people from around Australia. We believe that Agriculture is our primary and most important industry, whether it contributes a large or at times a lesser amount to our GDP - without
258 | P a g e agriculture we can't eat, and we can't live. To propose that an extractive industry should take precedence over agriculture just because of the 'significance of the resource' completely misses the point that Australians need to strategically prepare for the future, and decide whether to extract not on the basis of whether the resource is big enough and will provide jobs and income for the state, but whether it fits with the big scheme of whether we'll have enough viable land and water left in the future to feed our ever growing population.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. If any of you have children, now would be a time to reflect on the fact that no matter how much money you and/or your family has, you can't quarantine yourselves or your children from the effects of a future without enough food and/or water. Having money in your pocket cannot buy food if there is no food available. At present the whole of Australia can only feed 60 million people per year - but if the NSW government allows extractive industries to take precedence over agriculture, which is what this proposed SEPP is all about, our future food production capacity will be less than 60 million people per year, possibly much less if other states follow your example. There must be something wrong with our politicians if they're being guided purely by short term economic interests, and not long term sustainability for our country and our state. The people of NSW (and Australia) deserve better than what you're offering. Start listening to what the people want, not what big business is and your own stupidity is pushing for.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
259 | P a g e
Mary Taylor
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 9:50 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a a growing vineyard business in the Hunter Valley with a newborn son and I would like to see him have the opportunity to continue the business when he grows up.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
260 | P a g e development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:28 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kerry Eassie
Tara Garah
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
261 | P a g e
My family and I own and operate a mixed farming and livestock business at Garah and Mungindi in northwestern NSW. Farming enterprises such as ours would be worthless if the volume and integrity of the artesian water supply were to be compromised. The bore on our property extends 1100 metres into the Surat Basin aquifer, supplies 14 adjoining properties through over 200 Kim's of underground piping. Compromise that and over 35000 ha of prime agricultural land could be taken out of production.
I and my family have voted Liberal/Coalition all our lives. Chang these policies or you lose our votes, and those I suspect of many others in our communities. That will significantly alter the dynamics of the voting structure in many country areas, and for many of us, permanently so.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kerry Eassie
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:35 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Christopher Robertson
"Milverton" 242 Kirkton Road Lower Belford
NSW 2335
Dear Premier
262 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We live in the Lower Hunter Valley community of Lower Belford and we are impacted on by the proposal to bring CSG extraction to our community. Our community is a mix of dairy, vineyards, thoroughbred breeding and rural residential. Our family consists of my wife and I and her aged parents, who we are the registered carers for. Our property fronts Jump up Creek on our western boundary.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The threat of CSG on my family has been considerable, it impacts on our physical and mental health and our future financial security. We surveyed our community in January this year and 97% of the residents voted to make our community CSG free.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Christopher Robertson
263 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:51 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Daniel Bethune
702 Keerrong Road
Keerrong NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My family live in a beautiful rural setting 15 minutes out of Lismore. We decided to raise a family in this setting as we wanted our children to have fresh air and wild fauna. What a gift !
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
264 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Daniel Bethune
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 12:21 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
F A Hone
"Tebuana" 765 Mt Lindsay Road
Barraba NSW 2347
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
For the last 40 years I have owned and run a sheep and cattle grazing property west of Barraba on the Nandewar Range. We have produced first cross lambs and store weaner cattle in many changing environmental, industrial and political scenes.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. There are enough problems associated with producing foods without restrictions such as those proposed.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
265 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
F A Hone
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 1:22 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mark & Renee Doyle
Mona leigh 381 Burley Griffin Way
Ardlethan NSW 2665
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are a young couple with three children who were not handed down a farm but who have worked hard to gradually buy enough land to become an economically viable business. To have the threat of mining companies being able to walk in and completely change the economic and physical environment with limited government intervention beggars belief. Why is it that the people with the most money seem to have the most rights? Protect what we have worked so hard to develop and nuture.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the
266 | P a g e economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mark & Renee Doyle
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 1:55 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Eric Thomas Smith
Misty Glen Wines 293 Deasys Road
267 | P a g e
Pokolbin NSW 2320
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My partner Vicci Lashmore -Smith and I own and run a 56 acre property in the Hunter Valley. As part of the property, we have 16 acres of vines producing wine for our own label, Misty Glen Wines. We also have some holiday accomodation.Our area is quite pristine with a genuine country feel about it.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.The Hunter Valley wine area is the second most tourist traffic area in New South Wales. It is only exceeded in people visits by Sydney itself.To potentially destroy this long term area for short term gain is abhorrent and not befitting any elected government.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
268 | P a g e
Eric Thomas Smith
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 7:02 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Tracey Fuller
670 Keerrong Road
KEERRONG NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I'm a single mum with two beautiful daughters. We live in the Keerrong valley on an sixty two acre beef cattle farm, in the State's North.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality
269 | P a g e and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Tracey Fuller
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 7:03 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Joe Martin
"Tahlee"
Mullaley NSW 2379
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 400Ha irrigated cropping operation on the liverpool plains
270 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Joe Martin
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 8:27 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
AW Higgins
Wandinong Mullaley
NSW 2379
Dear Premier
271 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run grazing enterprise in the Mullaley region south west of Gunnedah. The Government must protect these high value regions such as the Liverpool Plains from any development that may threaten its viablity and long term productive future.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Australia has a very small proportion of highly productive agricultural land. Why threaten it by allowing CSG and coal mining on such areas. You must give agriculture a higher priority.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
AW Higgins
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 9:38 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jason MAkeig
904 Cooran Traveston Rd Cooran
QLD 4579
272 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a member of the Gympie WASP group which is an incorporated association. WASP stands for Water Air and Soil Protection. The below 4 points I stand by with heartfelt endorsement and am concerned an agenda of extreme economic fundamentalism has entered the game of sharing resourses and impacts multiple levels of community health and well being!! The people are the 'community' not the interests of an elite few. THe community has no choice but to uphold these long-fought-for ethics!!
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jason MAkeig
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:05 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sandy Higgins
Curracabark Gloucester
273 | P a g e
NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife, Susan, and I, our three daughters, my brother and wife, James and Melinda, and their three daughters, my parents, Jim and Margaret, operate a 4,000 ha beef cattle property west of Gloucester. We have run it for four generations and previous to that it has operated by others incuding the A.A Company as a beef property as far back as 1830. All those years have seen successful beef production helping to feed the world with beef to local and world markets including Smithfield, London during the 1950's, and later to USA, EU, Russia, Asia including Japan and now China. This long history of sustainable food production and domestic plus export income from rural land is of course repeated throughout the state and is now being threatened by mineral extraction. Once-off mineral extration is terminal, not sustainable, in terms of profit and export income. Energy minerals are substitutable with renewable energies. Metalurgical minerals are often only needed until technology creates substitutes as it has with energy minerals. Food from sunlight is not replaceable. In the long term global perspective, food will always end up being of greater value production than short term mining. Food production is sustainable, renewable and essential to life. Mineral extraction is non renewable and only adds to lifestyle, not life itself.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
274 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sandy Higgins
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:21 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mr. Laurence Piers Bannatyne
PO Box 1365
ORANGE NSW 2800
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 260 ha grazing enterprise in the Central Tablelands of NSW on some of the best agricultural land in the state. I believe that such land should be carefully looked after for food and fibre production for present and future generations.
275 | P a g e
Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I believe also that mining activity can cause the value of surrounding land to fall because of the very valid fear of loss of underground water and of pollution by mining activities. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mr. Laurence Piers Bannatyne
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:34 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Helen gibbons
702 Keerrong rd
KEERRONG NSW 2480
Dear Premier
276 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I jointly own with my daughter and her partner a 15 acre property in the secluded valley at Keerrong. I am deeply concerned that the present NSW Government is prejudiced against the rural population and their land rights. We want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We want to dramatically increase solar power wind power and the exciting new technologies. We want the govt. to invest in these areas. We DON'T WANT TO DESTROY OUR LANDSCAPE as O'Farrell's bully tactics seem intent on pursuing.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Helen gibbons
277 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:49 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Alison
Dunne
NSW 2325
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a community member with a strong interest in children's services, community services & the aged. I also provide a environmental refuge of approximately 30 acres in the Hunter Valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
278 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Alison
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:55 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
daryl morris
807 31 station st newtown
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
279 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I eat food supplied by farmers. I am concerned about human rights that of farmers and their children. I feel anger and pain that governments are no longer respecting the land or it's people.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
daryl morris
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 12:26 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Neil and Lesley Smart
16 Jackey drive
Camden park NSW 2570
Dear Premier
280 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are family with young son living in Camden and very concerned about decisions being made by politicians regarding our environment, our water, our land values and our health due to mining of unconventional gas mining. The proposed amendments to the state environmental policy are unfair to the landholder, the community and to our great country Australia. Something has to be done to stop this invasion.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Neil and Lesley Smart
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
281 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 8:10 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Christina Nicolaou
581 Dorroughby Road
Dorroughby NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are a family of four living on 2 hectares in the Northern rivers. We should have every right to refuse this amendment, we have a clean environment and grow fruit trees and have animals that's why we live in the country. The soil is so fertile here, being a volcanic region and should only be used for food sources and farming.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Your people need to drive around these pristine areas you want to destroy its then you will realize what a terrible mistake you are making.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Christina Nicolaou
282 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 9:16 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kenneth wheelwright
"Roslyn Estate" 810 Roslyn Rd
Roslyn NSW 2580
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a grazing property on the Southern Tablelands and have been actively involved in developing and maintaining an Agricultural enterprise that will exist long into the Future.We want our property to able to produce food and fibre long into the future.as such we see the proposed actions are a real threat to our ability and those that follow us to maintain that vision.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.They do not fill me with any confidence that we can fulfill the vision outlined above.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
283 | P a g e
Kenneth wheelwright
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 11:09 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kathy Faldt
Koolena Rd
North Maclean Queensland 4280
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a citizen very concerned about Australia's agricultural and food production ability. Growing food for local consumption is essential for community health and well being. Food production longterm must be supported by all levels of government. Mining exploits our resources for corporate profit at little benefit to communities. Those costs of exploitation are not paid for by the mining industry.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Food production longterm must be supported by all levels of government. Mining exploits our resources for corporate profit at little benefit to communities. Those costs of exploitation are not paid for by the mining industry.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
284 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Kathy Faldt
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 11:28 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
David and Catherine Peart
Tondeburine Gulargambone
NSW 2828
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife and I have an grain growing operation in the Central North of NSW. We produce canola, wheat ,durum,lupis ,chickpeas and sorghum. We have three daughters.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
285 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
David and Catherine Peart
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 11:55 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Greg and Dianne Peart
Wongalee 255 Bardens Road
Curban NSW 2827
Dear Premier
286 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Over the past 40 years we have worked hard to expand from a CSL block of 650ha to develop a progressive, profitable and sustainable cropping and livestock farming enterprise, now covering 3050ha in Central Western NSW. We have raised and educated four sons during this time, one of whom is now in business with us. Our most fertile, productive and profitable area which has played a big part in the success and expansion of our business is now under threat of CSG mining development. We love our life here and wish to have the right to continue in our chosen business and preserve the productivity of our land for our children and grandchildren.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The first consideration in any Government Legislation should be the people. If the development of CSG and mining industries compromises the future and wellbeing of communities, the development of sustainable agricultural enterprises and /or the environment it should not be an option. Why isn't the Government concentrating on viable sustainable energy resource development instead of pushing for mining development for short term financial gains?
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
287 | P a g e
Greg and Dianne Peart
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 12:40 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Johanna Kempff
35 Frame Road
Codrington NSW 2471
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband runs a 600 acre soybean and sugar cane farm near Lismore, on the NSW North Coast. We are raising our daughter on this farm and hope to leave it to her when she grows up, as a viable agricultural enterprise. However a mining exploration licence is now covering our farm and indeed the whole neighbourhood and this is making me fearful for our future.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
288 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
The profits from mining end up in the pockets of a very few rich people, or they end up overseas. Very little flows into public coffers. It is farming communities who feed the Australian population. After all, you can't eat coal. I predict that this will be an election issue, for the state of NSW and for the whole country. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Johanna Kempff
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 1:35 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Emma Ridley po box 75 scone
NSW 2337
289 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am employed in the thoroughbred industry. I am also a land holder and invest in thoroughbred bloodstock and beef cattle crazing. I am a mother and the main provider for our family. I am incensed with this state coalition govenrment's complete lack of vision, inability to plan for a sustatinable future or provide certainty for anyone but mining. my submission isn't about anti mining or the people that work in the industry as many of my family and firends do, mining has a place but not at the continued expense of other industries, communities, and resources that cannot be replaced. The recent SEPP proposal by the coalistion govenrnment is a disgrace.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
290 | P a g e
Emma Ridley
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 1:39 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am employed in the thoroughbred industry. I am also a land holder and invest in thoroughbred bloodstock and beef cattle grazing. I am a mother and the main provider for our family. I am incensed with this state coalition govenrment's complete lack of vision, inability to plan for a sustainable future or provide certainty for anyone but mining. My submission isn't about anti mining or the people that work in the industry as many of my family and friends do, mining has a place but not at the continued expense of other industries, communities, and resources that cannot be replaced. The recent SEPP proposal by the coalition government is a disgrace.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and
291 | P a g e objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 1:40 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Emma Ridley
PO box 75 scone
NSW 2337
Dear Premier
292 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am employed in the thoroughbred industry. I am also a land holder and invest in thoroughbred bloodstock and beef cattle grazing. I am a mother and the main provider for our family. I am incensed with this state coalition govenrment's complete lack of vision, inability to plan for a sustainable future or provide certainty for anyone but mining. My submission isn't about anti mining or the people that work in the industry as many of my family and friends do, mining has a place but not at the continued expense of other industries, communities, and resources that cannot be replaced. The recent SEPP proposal by the coalition government is a disgrace.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Emma Ridley
293 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 1:53 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Suzy Sims
626 Catlerreagh Rd AGNES BANKS
NSW 2753
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on a 120 acre Throughbred stud on the Hawkesbury river. I am a young mother of one and pregnant with my second child.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality
294 | P a g e and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Suzy Sims
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:03 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Olivia Stevens
Kia-Ora Stud Allan Bridge Road
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
295 | P a g e
We run a 1500acre thoroughbred horse stud in the Upper Hunter Valley near Scone, the Horse Capital of Australia. This area is now surrounded by mines when it should be protected from any more mining, not only due to the nature of our business and it's significance on the world thoroughbred scene but also for the other farmers and land owners in the area.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Olivia Stevens
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
296 | P a g e
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:06 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Conor Phelan
Vinery Stud Segenhoe Rd
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I work on a 2800 acres property with horses and cattle
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
297 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Conor Phelan
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:12 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Nicola Cramsie
133 Susan Street Scone
NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have been involved with the thoroughbred industry in the Hunter Valley, in an administrative capacity, for nearly 30 years including 22 years at the largest privately owned racing and breeding enterprise in the southern hemisphere, Woodlands Stud. I now work at Newgate Farm. I am also a small breeder myself. Ever since childhood, growing up in Ireland, the Hunter Valley and the Australian thoroughbred industry have been held up as icons on the world thoroughbred stage.
298 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I have watched with dismay as the Denman/Jerrys Plains area becomes more and more polluted by the massive expansion and encroachment of open cut mining areas. Australia produces some of the best thoroughbred horses and the best wines in the world and has an enviable reputation worldwide for both of these products. The reason for this is inextricably linked to few small areas in this vast country where conditions are ideal for producing an exceptional product. The Hunter Valley has been and can continue to be a priceless resource for centuries. As a coal reserve it has value for possibly decades but after it has been plundered and destroyed there is no chance whatever of re-establishing what will have been lost. I cannot believe that any government would want its legacy for posterity to be that it destroyed the icon that is the Hunter Valley - its history, its people, its townships and its future.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Nicola Cramsie
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:12 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Keith Ray
101 Railway Street Wentworthville
NSW 2145
Dear Premier
299 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an author and publisher of a horse racing book. I also regularly comment about horse racing on various media outlets.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. It is high time that this government stopped the mining industry from riding roughshod over agriculture and the environment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Keith Ray
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:16 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Melanie Caban
74 Barton Street
SCONE NSW 2337
Dear Premier
300 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
After growing up on the family farm in the Upper Hunter, I have worked in an administrative role in the local thoroughbred industry for 26 years and completely oppose anything that threatens the rural industries that are the heart and lifeblood of the Upper Hunter.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The thoroughbred industry nurtures and protects the natural land and environment like no other, preserving it in pristine condition for the future. To allow anything to threaten its existence or future can only be considered as reckless and willful destruction. Destroying not only the environment and land but also the livelihood and careers of many residents and businesses in rural townships.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Melanie Caban
301 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:25 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Lyndy Moss
P O Box 149 South Grafton
NSW 2460
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I run a mixed cattle and tea tree property in the Northern Rivers,NSW. The water table and groundwater generally, is intrinsically bound with the surface water, and our farm like most, emphatically depends on the reliability of that water supply to function successfully. Mining companies are not more important than farmers, no matter what way you try to look at it. Our business should have just as much right to exist and prosper as wealthy mining companies do, in fact even more, as this is our home as well. It is proven that hydraulic fracturing and drilling is unsafe for human cohabitation - see results from US gasfields. If we value the Great Artesian Basin and our local aquifers as we undoubtably should, then Australia should not proceed with Coal Seam Gas Mining. Not only is the risk to Water unacceptable but it has also been proven that there is a considerable leakage of gas into the air as well as chemical contamination of the soil wherever gasfields are established. We cannot afford to trash our country like this for what is seen as a temporary energy fix. There are better ways to deal with energy needs for the future and using up all our 'natural conventional gas' from areas such as Bass Strait by selling off quickly to China and India is just short term corporate greed. As proud and equal citizens of this great country we will not tolerate such reckless plunder to suit the wants and desires of wealthy corporations while the alternative energy sources are being ignored. We maximally object to this industry and to the proposed amendments to the State EPP (MPP&EI)that would give it carte blanche. We have something more 'significant' to protect.
302 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Lyndy Moss
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:26 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
R Chance
PO Box 6269
South Lismore NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a voting parent and grand parent who works full time in the Dairy industry.
303 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. You must remember that you are employed as a Representative of the People of NSW and for only a relatively short time. You have a clear duty under this tenure to maintain safe, balanced, sound, effective, efficient and transparent systems that support ALL of the community and the environment they live in. Your job description is to focus on these things and not to serve and pander to Mining businesses and the like.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
R Chance
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:31 PM
To: Danica Leys
304 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kathryn Ludeke
5 Wilson St
Gundy NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
305 | P a g e
Kathryn Ludeke
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:33 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Catherine Chicken
PO Box 280 Scone
NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a veterianrian employed in the horse industry in the Upper Hunter Valley of NSW. More importatntly, I am the mother of 2 children who are being brought up in a deteriorating environment with respect to air and water quality resulting from the ever expanding coal mining industry and its associated impacts in our area.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I am deeply concerned about the on- going inconsistencies in the position being taken by the NSW government with respect to so-called "co-existing industries" in our area that are constantly fighting for survival against the ever expanding and obviously powerful mining industry. As for the social and environmental impacts on our area - they seem to be totally ignored! At what point are our elected representatives going to stand up for the ligitimate concerns of those people living in areas of this state that are lucky enough to house "significant resources"?
306 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Catherine Chicken
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:37 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dan Adams
1450 bylong valley way baerami NSW 2333
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a thoroughbred breeding farm and also have a number of Angus breeding cows in baerami nsw outside of Denman, and not far from the proposed yarrawa mine project, I live on farm with my wife and 7 young children, my father and his wife are also on farm, my livelihood is at risk with the ongoing debarcle that is the "State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007." if goes ahead as it is both of the major plyers in the Thoroughbred industry Coolmore and Darley will pull out of the hunter valley effectively ruining the multi billion dollar industry,
307 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Dan Adams
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:58 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
308 | P a g e
Robert Stapleford
323 Kirkton Road
Belford NSW 2335
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 100 acre Primary Production Business in the Hunter Valley.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robert Stapleford
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:00 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Luke Ward Thomas
309 | P a g e
P.O Box 253 Scone
NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I work in the thoughbred industry as a farm manager for a stud. I have a 120 Acre beef and horse proterty on the pages river in Gundy. This property is my major asset. I have 20 years experience in the Thoughbred industry and have most of my capitol tied up in either horses or farm land. I have lived in the Hunter for 24 years. I am married with 3 young children. I have my own and my families future irreversably linked to farming in the Upper Hunter valley
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I have my own and my families future irreversably linked to farming in the Upper Hunter valley
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
310 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Luke Ward Thomas
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:18 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Greg Leys
119 Byamee lane Tamworth
NSW 2340
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am currently involved in the thoroughbred breeding industry being the director of Leys Horseshoing pty ltd. we employ on average five to eight staff and provide equine podiatry to major breeding farms in the hunter valley nsw
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners,
311 | P a g e environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Greg Leys
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:27 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Derek Field
Widden Stud Widden Valley
Via Denman NSW 2328
312 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Widden Stud is located on 7000 acres of spectacular horse country in the Widden Valley (western side of the Hunter Valley), our farm features rich alluvial creek flats sheltered by magnificent sandstone cliffs providing a pristine and tranquil environment in which our bloodstock can thrive and grow. It is completely surrounded by the World Heritage Listed Wollemi National Park and is very closely located to the World Renowned Wollemi Pine. We have approximately 50 employees who live and work on the property and any mining would have a major impact on our community as well as the business.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
313 | P a g e
Derek Field
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:29 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Gayle White
Vinery Stud 684 Segenhoe Rd
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family live on Vinery Stud, a Thoroughbred breeding operation that employs aproximately 60 peopole. Vinery Stud is the livelihood of the families of these respective employees.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state
314 | P a g e and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Gayle White
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:34 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Anne Kennedy
"Yuma" Billeroy Road
Coonamble NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
315 | P a g e
I am a farmer and grazier, and help with our 30,000 ha. cattle and cropping business, based in North West NSW. I grew up in Pymble, in O'Farrell's electorate, and I have voted conservative my entire life. I am 66 years old, a grandmother of 12, and I can absolutely guarantee you that I will NEVER vote for Liberal or National again. NEVER. Until you stop being ruled by the mining industry, and return our landholders' rights to us. I have never felt so betrayed in my life. We work hard, pay taxes, vote conservative, trust our govt., and this is what you do to us in return. I must add that I will also NEVER vote for a party that has Hartcher in it. Do none of you eat or drink? What does Hartcher think we will do for food and water, when he has allowed the CSG industry to destroy our land and our aquifers?
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I have not spoken to one single person who is in favour of these amendments (but I don't know any miners). I presume the mining industry is deliriously happy, and our traitorous govt., but every single person I have spoken to, is furious, betrayed, and say they will never vote coalition again.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Anne Kennedy
316 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:37 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Holloway
15/63A Barnstaple Road Russell Lea
NSW 2046
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Having worked in the breeding industry as a breeding journalist and attending all the major thoroughbred sales in Australia, I believe the turnabout by the SEPP is absolutely devastating to those thousands of people working in the industry and once again illustrates the lies told by the O'Farrell government in NSW.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
317 | P a g e
John Holloway
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:40 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Brian Nutt
Attunga Stud Scone
NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own and operate a 220 hectare thoroughbred horse stud in the Hunter Valley near Scone and have owned the property since 2000. I am continuously appalled at the lack of concern shown toward agriculural activities in the Hunter valley as a result of the continued expansion of coal mining in the region. Whilst the agricultural community is not anti coal mining, we fee the co existance is a one way street in favour of the coal mining industry. The newly elected state govenrnment promised there would be no threat to prime agricultural land and its associated activities, yet the proposed ammendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy contradicts such a promise. It is time once again to stand up to the State Government and remind them of their pre election committments. Brian Nutt
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
318 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Brian Nutt
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Andrew Wiles
14 Cook Street
Randwick NSW 2031
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Despite years of promises, including from the Premier Barry O’Farrell and Planning Minister Brad Hazzard that strategic agricultural lands will be protected by the Government process it is clear that the only thing this Government is prepared to protect is the mining companies and their interests – at the expense of landholders, regional communities, tourism or any non-mining business operation. This legislation betrays every promise the NSW Government has made to agricultural industries and to regional communities. It flies in the face of every policy introduced since the NSW Government was elected to address land use conflicts and protect agricultural industries and the environment. It is abundantly clear that the Mining Industry is driving the Government agenda when this
319 | P a g e announcement relating to planning is delivered by Minister Hartcher. What sort of message does this signal for landholders, regional communities, or any non-mining business operation? If this Government is to represent the broader interests of the people of NSW then this proposed SEPP must be repealed.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Wiles
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:50 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Su-Anne Dennis
"Aslee" Rylstone Rd
BAERAMI NSW 2333
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Along with my husband we own a 200 acre farm in the Upper Hunter Valley, we are here to give our children a healthy rural lifestyle with farming and agriculture to be a big part in their upbringing.
320 | P a g e
These rural fertile lands need to be protected for not only our future but also our country as a whole.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Protect our food growing areas for the benefit of all our residents.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Su-Anne Dennis
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:58 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ross Dillon
Goanna Downs New England Hwy
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
321 | P a g e
My wife and I run a small broodmare farm just outside Scone, foaling down Thoroughbred mares and raising the foals into young horses destined for the sale ring or the racetrack. We have anywhere from 40 to 80 horses on our property at any given time, a very large percentage of which are very young horses.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
The Upper Hunter Thoroughbred industry is part of one of the largest industries in Australia when including all facets of racing. This area employs thousands of people, and importantly it is a sustainable industry for hundreds of years as we only improve the land on which we breed. Mining on the other hand will destroy the land for hundreds of years and then move on after a few decades. Please reconsider this very short sighted approach to the sustainable use of the Upper Hunter Valley.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ross Dillon
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
322 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 3:58 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Nikki Richardson
Vantage Hill 427 Middlebrook Road
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of two young boys living in Scone NSW where my husband and I run our own business breaking in and pre training thoroughbred horses on our 80 acre property. We live in the horse capital of Australia and are deeply concerned that the mining industry will take over not only our community but also our lives.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
323 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Nikki Richardson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 4:08 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Renee Geelen
34 Carshalton St
Croydon NSW 2132
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
324 | P a g e
I am a statistical consultant to the horse racing industry and many of my clients and associates will be negatively affected by this change.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Renee Geelen
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 4:10 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
William Andrew Gibson
'Dalmore' Nandowra Road
Aberdeen NSW 2036
325 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 700acre horse breeding and cattle farm in the Scone region.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
William Andrew Gibson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
326 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 4:14 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sarah Wills
161 Allan Cunningham Rd
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on a small property outside Scone and breed riding ponies.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
327 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Wills
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 4:16 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Andrew Perryman
3933 Golden Highway
Denman NSW 2328
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I manage a 6500 acre thoroughbred horse stud near Denman and have 2 young childeren at the Denman primary school. I am outrage that my occupation and families health is being put at risk by this governments total disregard for our World renowned Thoroughbred Breeding industry and the
328 | P a g e other agriculural industries within the Hunter Valley. The long standing agricultural industries including Thorougbred breeding, Vine yards and Tourism have given the state economy so much over the past 100 years, particularly in terms of employment, tourism dollars and export returns. When coal mining is gone in 15 years time, once the governments owns up to how much the effects of coal mining and the burning of fossil fuels is having on our environment and public health. The suitable lands for the horse industry will be gone and who then will employ my children in this region? This government is obviously very sort sighted!! All the local agricultural industries will have been wiped out and replaced by dusty holes in the ground, just feeding Carcinogens into our lungs. If the coal mines continue to expand and pollute the air we breath, I will be forced to leave the Hunter Valley, I have an obligation to protect my families health. The Hunter Valley is now becoming a health hazard, just look at the sky line as you drive into the region, there is a thick seam of pollutants hanging over our heads. The government needs to look at the long term future of the state and investigate the revenue raised by the horse industry directly and also indirectly. Shorely the Equine Influenza shut down has shown this government how large the horse industry is and the people that rely on the thoroughbreds for employment and business. A large majority of Australia race horses are produced on the ideal areas around the Hunter. Lets look after this area, we can have a long future particularly with the expanion of racing throughout the world particularly asia.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
329 | P a g e
Andrew Perryman
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 4:35 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Adrian Brierley
510/118 Dudley Street West Melbourne
VIC 3003
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when
330 | P a g e assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Adrian Brierley
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 4:39 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rob Wallace
Arrowfield Stud Gundy Road
SCONE NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
331 | P a g e
Farm Manager on 2200acre horse stud in the Segenhoe valley near Scone.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rob Wallace
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 4:52 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
332 | P a g e
Diane Lawton
66 McLean Street
Maffra NSW 3860
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Diane Lawton
333 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:03 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Annie Hird
"Somerset" Medway Rd
Berrima NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am very involved in the thoroughbred industry and even though I live in the Highlands the Hunter Valley is very close to my heart.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Annie Hird
334 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:03 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
leslie wand & hanna kay river road blandford NSW 2338
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
we are both professionals running our respective businesses from a small property in blandford in the upper hunter. we moved here over 10 years ago to live a life style we thought conducive to our creativity, and escape the 'pressures' of city living.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when
335 | P a g e assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. and to think more rationally about the future rather than looking for the quick dollar without any thought for the future...
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
leslie wand & hanna kay
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:05 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Annie Hird
481 Medway Rd
Berrima NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
336 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Annie Hird
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:09 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
337 | P a g e
Bill Gresham
12 Liverpool St
Macquarie ACT 2614
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am retired and have more time to think about what is really important. Leaving a clean environment for our grandchildren is pretty high on the list. I am increasingly concerned about the apparent headlong rush to disregard the health of the environment in our efforts to gain short term rewards from mining.
Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Bill Gresham
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
338 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:11 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Richard Burns
Bundi 252 Burns road Hill End 2850
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own and run a 10000 acre grazing property,and produce wool and mutton.Our enterprise could be threatened by the extraction of precious water from the Macquarie river by Orange City Council,who will then sell this water or give it to Cadia goldmine.The Orange people do not want this expensive pipeline,but such is the power of mineing companies,their Council is pushing this deal. We need to be mindfull of the power of these multinational companies,as they can wreck the country,and then move on to another country and start all over again.Australians need to have a big say in what goes on in our country,as we are here for the future,unlike some mining companies,who are only interested in big profits in the shortest time,and do not share our love for Australia. We expect our political leaders to guard OUR interests,and not be blinded by greedy mining companies. Yours sincerely,Richard Burns.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
339 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Richard Burns
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:17 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Joanna McLachlan
1566 Mitchell Hwy
Bathurst NSW 2795
Dear Premier
340 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on a small property near Bathurst. I feel that environmental and community interests should be assessed before any mining development is considered.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Joanna McLachlan
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:25 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dr MJ Bennett
1464 Bylong Valley Way Kandos
NSW 248
Dear Premier
341 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retiree trying to preserve an important well watered acreage for my grandchildren and te whole community, extremely concerned about mining in this State and elsewhere, given its environmental dangers at all levels. We should be fast-tracking the use of coal and other minerals for the job of producing energy from renewables. This planet is smal and needs tender loving care.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Sincerely MJ Bennett
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Dr MJ Bennett
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
342 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:34 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Alexander Arthur
4/49 Imperial Ave
Bondi NSW 2026
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a member of the emergency services and live in Sydney.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
343 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Alexander Arthur
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:40 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
scott Holcombe
Milburn Creek 540 myra vale road
Wildes Meadow NSW 2755
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the Stud Manager of Milburn Creek owned By John and Trish Muir Long time Thoroughbred breeders who have been commercial Breeders of Thoroughbreds and stud Cattle for over 30 years! Re Scott Holcombe
344 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments, For the future of our industry and for our children that we hope will continue with in this wonderful industry! Scott Holcombe
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
scott Holcombe
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 5:52 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
345 | P a g e
Jane Parkes
23 Cruikshank St
Bellbird NSW 2325
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a land owner in the Upper and Lower Hunter areas of NSW.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
346 | P a g e
Jane Parkes
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 6:25 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Helmut Berndt
12 Morobe Place
Orange NSW 2800
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a resident of Orange and have lived in rural NSW for the past 38 years. My children and grandchildren live in the district and I am in regular contact with primary producers and environmentalists. Our future in the Orange District and country NSW is in the sustainable production of "clean, green" food for Australia and the World. This ability for the land to be productive, and for clean water to be available, must be preserved and have priority over short-term mining ventures.
Mining is an ephemeral windfall for Government coffers and totally unsustainable. Some forms of mineral extraction such as open cut coal mining and CSG extraction do untold long term damage to our fragile environment and could have devastating consequences for our future water supplies. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
347 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Helmut Berndt
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 6:29 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Matthew Caban
Scone
NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am 37 years old I have two children and live in a nice peaceful and resourceful country town called Scone! I am a self employed Farrier and have been shoeing horses for 20 years and I employ 3-4 people at times to help with my work that is solely on thoroughbred studs around the Scone area! I have grown up on the land and been around horses and animals all my life and I would like the same for my children. Whilst I understand coal mining is a necessity and it is vital to our economy (so is our Thoroughbred industry) I don't understand why people want to mine in and around small communities like Scone that contributes to the National and local economies in a major way! Surely
348 | P a g e there is coal in other areas of Australia that isn't being used for any other purpose so why not mine those areas instead of ripping the guts out of good and sustainable land!!!!
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Caban
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 6:35 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Francine Khan
441 Gundy Road
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
349 | P a g e
I am an environmentally concerned landowner of the Upper Hunter. For the last 23 years my family have watched in horror as our landscape changed at the hands of the mining sector all for the mighty $. We cannot keep destroying Mother Earth.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Francine Khan
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 6:42 PM
To: Danica Leys
350 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dr. Shalabh Sahu
Emirates Park, New England Hwy ( P.O.Box : 75 )
Murrurundi NSW 2338
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have been a director and a vet at Emirates Park for over a period of 22 years. I am so disappointed about government just turning back from their original promises to be sure that thoroughbred breeding remains as major industry in hunter region.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and look after T/B horse industry.
351 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Shalabh Sahu
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 7:03 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Leanna Maynard
45 Mount View Rd
Mudgee NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I work on Gooree Park Stud located between Mudgee and Gulgong, I also do jobs for Widden Stud in the Hunter Valley occasionally, As I work in the racing industry, this impacts my job as a stable hand.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and
352 | P a g e objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Leanna Maynard
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 7:29 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Clarke
157a Lowes Peak Rd.
NSW 2850
353 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife and I live on a 25 acre block in the state's central west. We are close to the town of Mudgee where I am employed. A short drive from where we live exist 2 large open cut coal mines. There are new mining projects and expansions of the two current operations. If these amendments as proposed by the state government pass through I fear that we will see a lot more mining exploration licenses issued in our area.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. If government policy is driven by the need for exploiting resources then I feel that all other interests in the debate will be overlooked.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Clarke
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 7:35 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
James Balfe
354 | P a g e
161 Allan Cunningham Rd
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on a property outside Scone and breed riding ponies.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
James Balfe
355 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 7:39 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
malcolm thornton
12/102 lawrence street
Freshwater NSW 2096
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We simply must stop digging up our coal and either burning it at home or shipping it off overseas. The climate is demonstrably warming and we cannot continue our addiction to fossil fuels. Why not shift some MAJOR support behind our renewables sector. This will most surely create more jobs than our ageing coal industry.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
356 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
malcolm thornton
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 7:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Alexandria Gardner
3367 Golden Hwy Jerrys Plains
2330 NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I work in the office at Coolmore Australia in Jerrys Plains
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
357 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Alexandria Gardner
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 8:10 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rowan Sedgwick
196 Turanville Road
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
358 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 70 acre equine thoroughbred agistment property outside Scone, NSW. Your approach to this crucial matter is pathetic and shows a complete lack of thought or effort on the part of the government. Why don't you make at least some attempt to minimize the long term impact of mining on our communities and businesses for the sake of all our futures?
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rowan Sedgwick
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
359 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 8:55 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Deirdre Franklin
17/28 Mortimer Street
Mudgee NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Two years ago I moved I to Mudgee from Sydney and since living in this area have been appalled to find how the mining industry (some of the mines not even owned by Australians) have been allowed to take over and ruin the land and the lives of hard working Australians. Why is this government even contemplating putting money BEFORE PEOPLE. I cannot help thinking there is another Obeid type person lurking in the Liberal Party!!
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality
360 | P a g e and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Deirdre Franklin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 7:36 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Freestone
3367 Golden Highway Jerrys Plains
NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
361 | P a g e
I am employed by Coolmore Australia and am reliant on the Thoroughbred industry for my employment and the support of my family. I see this miove by the Liberal State Government as a betrayal of what they have being saying through the lead up to the election campaign and initially after entering office. I can no longer stand to hear politician constantly lie. Our politicians are bereft of morals and will alter policy for immediate expediency, it is not the Australian way and they are destroying our country. The alterations in this bill are classic examples of short term greed.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Freestone
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
362 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 7:39 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Peter Haydon
Haydon Horse Stud 20 Haydons Lane
Bloomfield Homestead NSW 2338
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family have lived here continually since 1832. As Chairman of BCAG we fought hard to get the SEPP over the Bickham coal mine area which prohibits Open Cut Coal mining. Incredibly this Government has done nothing to add the words "no underground mining" to this SEPP after numerous consultations. This government has also not continued to legislate protecting the Upper Hunter area from mining as promised & outlined as " blue" on their Strategic map. This will mean the destruction of the region known as "Horse Capital Of Australia" & a region which employs more people than if replaced by mining. We urgently required you to treat this region as a special case and exclude it from your present plans & in fact enact on the promised legislation to " protect " this region & it's sustainable industries.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments & protect our region as promised. To move the lunar landscape of the lower Hunter to the upper Hunter would be a catastrophe seemly supported by this government.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
363 | P a g e
Peter Haydon
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 7:40 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Peter Haydon
Haydon Horse Stud 20 Haydons Lane
Bloomfield Homestead NSW 2338
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family have lived here continually since 1832. As Chairman of BCAG we fought hard to get the SEPP over the Bickham coal mine area which prohibits Open Cut Coal mining. Incredibly this Government has done nothing to add the words "no underground mining" to this SEPP after numerous consultations. This government has also not continued to legislate protecting the Upper Hunter area from mining as promised & outlined as " blue" on their Strategic map. This will mean the destruction of the region known as "Horse Capital Of Australia" & a region which employs more people than if replaced by mining. We urgently required you to treat this region as a special case and exclude it from your present plans & in fact enact on the promised legislation to " protect " this region & it's sustainable industries.
364 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments & protect our region as promised. To move the lunar landscape of the lower Hunter to the upper Hunter would be a catastrophe seemly supported by this government.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Peter Haydon
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:01 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Bill Magner
Coolmore Stud Jerrys Plains,Golden Highway
Denman Road NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Working at coolmore Stud.I'am married with four young children and I would be very concerned about the future enviromental and health issues that would arise from the continued mining activity in the jerrys plains area.
365 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Bill Magner
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:03 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
366 | P a g e
Angus Ireland
39 Warrowa Ave West Pymble
NSW 2073
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a Liberal voter in the seat of Kuring-Gai. Like many other Sydney-based people, I have friends and family members in rural parts of NSW who will be adversely effected by the proposed planning reforms for approving mining developments. I'm very concerned about the legislations intent to give more weight to economic growth and less weight to people and the environment. The balance was already greatly in favour of the mining industry and the proposed changes will further bias it.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I understand the Liberal party's need for revenue after the Labour years and appreciate how attractive mining royalties are. But I strongly urge you to look past the short term gain and see how badly the proposed changes will affect the people who voted you into office.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
367 | P a g e
Angus Ireland
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:07 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jennifer Cuthbertson
4 Coonanga Rd
Avalon NSW 2107
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a Sydney resident who cherishes our NSW countryside and the produce it delivers. I am not blind to the very valid concerns of country people to the threat of degradation of their land and environment to mining, and the threat this brings to our productive land and water. We must protect our and our children's heritage. Enough of NSW has been sadly affected - I note the Hunter Valley and for example this morning's warnings of air borne coal dust levels. No more is acceptable in our rural areas.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has
368 | P a g e taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Cuthbertson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:13 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Geoffrey Evers
4/52-56 Magnus Street
Nelson Bay NSW 2315
369 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Until 2010 I owned a grazing property in the Molong area where I had sheep and cattle and a few horses. Since retiring I have relocated the broodmares to the Hunter. I cannot believe the arrogance, ignorance and stupidity of the State and Federal Governments in allowing CSG and open cut mining to destroy prime agricultural. This short term gain in royalties is lunacy when the future is taken into account. We have seen at the recent ICAC enquiries the graft and corruption perpetrated by members of the state ALP. One can only wonder why the current Premier and relevant ministers are taking the abuse and criticism they are receiving for going back on their Pre election promises to ban this happening. They have gone further by actually facilitating and encouraging CSG and coal mining. Perhaps in the near future we will see the current Premier and Minister Harcher answering questions at the ICAC. I spent some time working in the Bylong Valley in my youth. To think that this wonderful country will be destroyed by coal mining can only be described as obscene.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
370 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Geoffrey Evers
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:20 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Neale Bruce
Berkeley Park Stud 590 Timor Rd
Blandford NSW 2338
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Recently purchased the above property to try and expand my present thoroughbred business. This property is in very close proximity to the site of Bickham Mine. My business is owner operator and my sole income is from this property. I have three teenage children for which I am trying to secure a stable financial future for from this property. Any hint of mining in our mine free environment(your Government have recently declared no open cut mining allowed from Bickham, does this mean you can go back on this promise too) would certainly undermine all my hopes and aspirations I pictured before purchasing this property, financially it would be devastating not only for myself and my wife's future but also for the future of my children.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
371 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Neale Bruce
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:25 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NIall Power
Coolmore Stud 3367 Golden Highway
Jerry's Plains NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
As a farm manager I am concerned about the impact of more mines in the Jerry's Plains area will have on the water quality in the Hunter River. I also have concerns about how these mines will have on the Thoroughbred industry in the Hunter Valley area as a whole.
372 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
NIall Power
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:35 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ronald Quigley
373 | P a g e
118 Egans farm YatteYattah
NSW 2539
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a sheep and cattle breeder at YatteYattah
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ronald Quigley
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
374 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:39 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mary Delaney
6 Hedge St
Strathpine QLD 4500
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an Australian that cares about the future of our country and the destructive road it is taking. The future of Australia is in sustainable renewable resources not polluting mining that has no future. We need to be planning for this future not destroying what we have.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mary Delaney
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
375 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:41 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Gillian Devine
97 Station Street
Burwood vic 3125
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have family in NSW and visit on a regular basis.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Gillian Devine
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
376 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:48 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Frank Flannery
Coolmore Australia 3367 Golden Highway
Jerrys Plains NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I work at Coolmore Australia, one of the biggest stud farms in the Hunter Valley, which has more than 100 employees.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
377 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Think long term not short term.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Frank Flannery
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 9:01 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jennifer Grigg
The Springs, 332 Kain Cross Road
Krawarree NSW 2622
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a small mixed farming property in the Krawarree area of the Southern Tablelands.
378 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I believe it is in the State Government's interest to consider landholders' rights ahead of any mining development.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Grigg
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 9:06 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Delwyn Crinis
63 Point St
Bulli NSW 2516
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a coalminers daughter! I grew up next door to Coalcliff colliery! I am a mother of four who is despairing of a future for my State, Country and Planet! I want you to stand for DEMOCRACY not CORPORATOCRACY. Need not greed!!!!!
379 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Your job is to represent all the people of NSW and ensure future constituents have an environment capable of supporting life. Your job is not to turn a quick buck!!!!!!!!!
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Delwyn Crinis
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 9:11 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Matt & Donna McPherson
"Broma" 14 Garner st
Lue NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
380 | P a g e
My family has lived in Lue N.S.W for approx. 8 yrs . We have 3 young children under 12 yrs old . Our village has approx. 100 residents . A silver/lead company is trying to build a lead /silver mine within 2.5 klms of the village . I have a business in the town of Mudgee & yes our area already has plenty of mining , & yes there are benefits of mining , but we need to take into account the stress that this type of thing has on a family, on anyone . The mining companies want to make as much money as possible , as we all do in business , but there needs to be more care in how they go about uprooting people from there homes due to noise , dust ,what's under the ground etc . Government has to realise that this decision is a bad one .
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Matt & Donna McPherson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 9:11 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Leona Walters
669 Doyle's Creek Rd
Doyle's Creek NSW 2330
Dear Premier
381 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in beautiful Doyle's Creek (already threatened by a dodgy mine deal)and have worked for Coolmore Stud for 13 years. I fear under these new changes that both my home and my job will be gone in a matter of years. Nobody is going to keep horses at a stud surrounded by mines, with 'elite equine athletes' breathing in dust from the day they are born. And I certainly don't want to live and raise a family in a dust filled environment.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. It's about time the government realised they have allowed mining companies to rape the Hunter Valley enough. It's time to reclaim our beautiful countryside. Stop being greedy
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Leona Walters
382 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 9:43 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Leigh Gardiner
15 Garner Street
Lue NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an Anglican Priest serving and living in a small rural community which includes, but is not limited to, the Bylong Valley. Therefore I have pastoral care of locals threatened by various mining activities in the region - not just Mt Penny. There are many locals who are undergoing the stress of having mining companies threaten, or indeed take, to arbitration unnecessarily. Many have their livelihoods threatened due to potential contaminations of water supplies, along with impacts of dust and noise. Then there are the "tree-changers" who have spent their Super on a retirement home in the bush and now being forced out, and with property prices falling due to the mines, they are left floundering. Very unfair to those who have worked hard all their lives. And very unfair, and wrong, to force farmers off their land who are feeding us. Therefore, I add my voice to the concerns raised by NSW Farmers and many other community groups about the recently proposed amendments. Mr O'Farrell promised greater care of our environment and people, but thus far in his term, everything seems to sway towards mining companies who already have more than enough clout to beat people and communities into submission.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and instead do a better deal for farmers and other rural landholders.
383 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Leigh Gardiner
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 9:44 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
liz thornton
12/102lawrence st freshwater sydney NSW 2096
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
As a tourist from Sydney and someone who always brings english friends to this beautiful part , I am amazed at the short sight that is displayed by government in Australia. The impacts from mining have already been demonstrated world wide and yet these vandals can demand whose land they dig up and destroy.
384 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
liz thornton
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 9:56 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Lisa Beecham
112 River Street
West Kempsey NSW 2440
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a resident of the Macleay Valley and mother of two. We rely on the Macleay River water supply for drinking and watering our gardens.
385 | P a g e
I have grave concerns about being able to safely supply food and clean water for future generations if your government continues to prioritise mining interests over the will of the people and the importance of maintaining a sustainable environment. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. If you go ahead with these amendments you will not get my vote in the future and I will ensure that everyone in my social networks is aware of your disregard for what the majority of people want.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Lisa Beecham
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:25 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Donna McKinnon
PO Box 25
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
386 | P a g e
I work and socialize with rural people and am acutely aware of how this will affect our industry and lifestyle.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Donna McKinnon
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:28 AM
To: Danica Leys
387 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Beth Williams
25 The Avenue Armidale
NSW 2350
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an environmentalist with a science degree majoring in botany. I have spent my life using my scientific knowledge to work for wise conservation of the natural environment across the landscape, in the context of ecologically sustainable development. I am appalled that the current Government is apparently abandoning commitment to ESD and is set on downgrading all environment protection laws "to remove green tape". The proposed mining SEPP is the latest example of the unprincipled rush to promote the coal and coal seam gas industries at all costs, without concern for possible impacts on the landscape, communities, underground water and the environment.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Beth Williams
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
388 | P a g e
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:36 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Felicity Davis
33 Minkara Road
Bayview NSW 2104
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the mother of 2 grown children with 4 grandchildren. I am enormously concerned for the future generations being able to live in this world. If you keep supporting mining and burning fossil fuels they will have no quality of life. It will cause such terrible extreme weather that could cause the death of 6 billion people. How can you even consider being the cause of such devastation?
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Felicity Davis
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
389 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:40 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Emma Richardson
2 Lester Close Wattle Ponds
NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a WHS Manager working in the area, I was also a cattle research scientist with NSW Agriculture for 8.5 years. I live with my young daughter in Singleton and am extremely concerned about he impact of the mining industry upon the environment and sustainability of our natural resources in the area. While I understand that the industry brings financial benefits to the community, there must be a balance between this and the ability of people to survive here into the future (from an animal/food production and human health perspective).
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
390 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Emma Richardson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:47 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Meriden Pastoral Company
"Meriden" Flight Springs Rd
Merriwa NSW 2329
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I operate a father of four children running a mixed farming enterprise in the Upper Hunter and Liverpool Plains districts of NSW. Both areas are currently under extreme pressure from existing and proposed coal mining and CSG operations.
391 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Meriden Pastoral Company
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:54 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kathy Barbour
302 Nowendoc Road Killawarra
2429 NSW
Dear Premier
392 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a grandmother mother wife and I am very concerned for their future
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kathy Barbour
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 11:23 AM
393 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Tracey Carpenter
76 Havannah St
Bathurst NSW 2795
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the President of the Bathurst Community Climate Action Network and our membership opposes the undermining of our environmental protections, our food security and our water resources through the proposed changes to planning laws by giving precedence to economic benefits from mining.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
394 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Tracey Carpenter
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 11:23 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Tony Dunn
'Kurrajong' 179 Pattersons Rd Wagga Wagg
NSW 2650
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run 250 ha mixed farm near Wagga Wagga. Wheat, Canola, Lupin and sheep. I am the 4th generation on 'Kurrajong' and have also had a career at Charles Sturt University - lecuring in Agricultural Extension in the agricultural degree course.
395 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Tony Dunn
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 11:38 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jenny Medd
396 | P a g e
Cargo Road Nashdale.
NSW 2800
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Having been born in Muswellbrook I have seen the destruction of landscape, the demise of small communities and the air pollution created by mining. As a grandmother of two young boys, I would hope to see a far better legacy left in rural NSW for their future. Environmental controls need to be maintained more than ever, especially given recent past history of government in this State.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. NSW needs to strengthen controls on mining and show some concern for our environment before our farming landscapes in particular, and our clean air and water resources are irrepairably depleted.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Medd
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 12:02 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
397 | P a g e
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run mixed farm enterprises in the Upper Hunter (breeding cattle for beef) and in the Moree Plains (finishing cattle & cropping) areas. We have 4 children wanting to carry on the tradition of farming. Both the Hunter and Liverpool Plains and areas north are becoming scorched earth. These environments will not be able to be regenerated. The mining industry is destroying the agricultural potential of the land. The future for farming and rural people is threatened.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 12:14 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
398 | P a g e
John Fry
34 Busby St
Bathurst NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am employed by the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy Australia and PNG to develop, demonstrate and deliver ecologically sustainable learning programs to Australians who want to understand and reinstate natural land functions, prepare for climate change and produce healthy local food. We strongly object to any mining developments that undermine our core beliefs for sustainable living practices and respect for all life.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
399 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
John Fry
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 12:23 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Irene Ireland
39 Warrowa Avenue
West Pymble NSW 2073
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dear Barry, My husband and I are part owners of a 1200 acre property in the beautiful area of Lue, NSW (20km east of Mudgee). We use this property to fatten steers directly for the abottoir - we have a sustainable approach to the way we work with our cattle and are also involved in a stewardship program with the local CMA to ensure the continuity of the local flora and fauna in the area. We have held this property for more than 25 years and we have worked hard to ensure that our approach to farming has a minimal impact on the environment with the best results for us and the local area. There is a mine proposed on the doorstep of our property - Kingsgate Bowden Silver Mine - our house on our property is only 1.2km from the mine site. I am very concerned about the impact this mine will have on our working farm, and also on the health of my husband and I, our four children, and my parents in law who currently live on the property full time.
400 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
Kingsgate has recently shelved its EIS development due to financial reasons however once the economy improves they will open the books again. I am fearful that the changes you propose will ensure a definite tick of approval by your government for the mine without considering the impacts of the local community in a fair way. I appreciate you taking the time to read my submission and look forward to your response. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Yours sincerely Irene Ireland "Lochiely" 1585 Pyangle Road Lue NSW 2850
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Irene Ireland
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 12:47 PM
401 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Phil Laird
"Middle Creek"
Boggabri NSW 2382
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 750 Ha beef enterprise in the north west of NSW. I have been engaged in the mining debate and made submissions in relation to various resource developments in our region.
I am disgusted with the amendments to the mining SEPP proposed by the mining minister Chris Hartcher. The amendments do not reflect current thinking in the community and are a dangerous lurch in the direction of the mining companies. I believe that these amendments are in complete conflict with the Murray Darling Basin Plan that was negotiated with full community consultation between 3 states. The Basin Plan has at its heart Scientific Rigor and Triple Bottom Line processes. Unlike the Basin Plan there has been no consultation re these amendments. The "significance of the resource" test is laughable at best in the light of the governments own thinking in its MDB Plan submissions. The governments submission to the Basin Plan can be found at http://ccs.infospace.com/ClickHandler.ashx?du=www.water.nsw.gov.au%2f...%2flaw_reform_mdb_ murray_darling_basin_plan...&ru=http%3a%2f%2fwww.water.nsw.gov.au%2fArticleDocuments%2f3 4%2flaw_reform_mdb_murray_darling_basin_plan_community_info.pdf.aspx&ld=20130808&ap=2 &app=1&c=ironmc&s=ironmc&coi=771&cop=main- title&euip=101.175.11.239&npp=2&p=0&pp=0&pvaid=255b0d30c7c2469487cf65ef717cb0f0&ep=2 &mid=9&en=XXlXdwcoH%2baTSAtPa0RjIVBDjktQDNQO5YevaKfgc6FFxEkMQjRZXA%3d%3d&hash=9 3B1106EC3FB29166727282C7632AFC9 This government has lost its way. Please drop these amendments before further damage is done to the governments credibility. The previous Labor Government was corrupted by mining interests and the current LNP Government is well on its way to achieving a similar status. If you want to get the "balance right", wake up, smell the roses and get back to work for the community of NSW, the people who voted you in. Our patience is wearing thin.
402 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Phil Laird
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 1:41 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Don,Val&Kylie Yates
320Breakfast Creek Road Rylstone
NSW 2849
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We retired to run a small cattle farm in a beautiful quiet valley and have been pestered by miners looking for anything they can make a dollar out of. It's hard enough keeping our environment the way we thought itnwouldnbe until we shuffled off the planet and do not want it make worse in terms of giving hungry mining companies more power to intervene in our lives and business.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
403 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Don,Val&Kylie Yates
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 1:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Emily Price
945 Rouchel Road
ABERDEEN NSW 2336
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My partner and I are both involved in the Thoroughbred breeding industry and are based in Aberdeen.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the
404 | P a g e economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Emily Price
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 1:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Peter Hinds
Bonanza Kenyu Road
405 | P a g e
Boorowa NSW 2586
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 3000 acre mixed grazing farm near Boorowa. I've been involved in the rural industry for 40 years and it's about time the rural industries were treated seriously instead of second rate to the mining industry.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
406 | P a g e
Peter Hinds
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 2:00 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Patricia Carney
2040 Hunter Rd
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a saddlery retailer in Scone NSW and my business very heavily revolves around the Thoroughbred Industry.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Patricia Carney
407 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 2:02 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Marsh Carney
Banool Banool Park Lane
Parkville NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 2000acre cattle grazing farm in the Hunter Valley.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Marsh Carney
408 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 2:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ray Rowney
2 Racecourse Rd
ORANGE NSW 2800
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retired High School Mathematics teacher and have been a member of various conservation societies such as Tas Wilderness, Orange Field Naturalists, Orange Caving Club and am disturbed to hear of the changes to the State Planning Policy particularly regarding mining. Locally I have seen the effect of mining on good grazing land.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments, as mining benefits will only be in the short term whereas we need to conserve our valuable farming land for future generations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ray Rowney
409 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 3:16 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
angus mckibbin
154 peel st bathurst NSW 2795
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a rural land owner at O'Connell. As a citizen of NSWS , I emphatically reject the O'Farrell governments changes to State Environmental Planning Policy to favour mining over agriculture and the habitats of wildlife and flora. We have destroyed too much of this state already. What legacy do you wish to leave your children. We have not earned the coal, it is here by the Grace of God. Get the people of their bums and using their brains to develop industries that we can sell onto the world market. Don't rape the environment.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
410 | P a g e
angus mckibbin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 3:24 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Brian and Helen Jenkinson
10 Cressfield Rd
Parkville NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a small cattle and horse farm in a fertile valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations
411 | P a g e and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Brian and Helen Jenkinson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 3:32 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Meredith Brainwood
109 Tabberatong Rd Limekilns
NSW 2795
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
412 | P a g e
I run an environmental consultancy from a home office and live on 1700 acres in the Central Tablelands. Like many of the local community I am frightened by the power of the mining industry, and bewildered by the lack of recognition by city dwellers of the way that the mining industry undermines the social and civil rights of rural residents in a way that would not be tolerated by urban communities.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Meredith Brainwood
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
413 | P a g e
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 3:43 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Grantley Blake
"Blakefield" 1829 Denman Road
Muswellbrook NSW 2333
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My farm "Blakefield", is approximately 500 acres, 250 of which are under irrigation. Three families live on the property including 7 children all under the age of seven (7). I personally have been farming this property for 57 years, maintaining and keeping it running as prime agricultural land which should be preserved at all times.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
414 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. We are a very close adjoining landholder to several mines carrying on a full farming enterprise. We object to the proposed ammendments as we are already being affected in the following ways. 1. Dust: We live on the western side of the mine. When the westerly wind conditions prevail we are severely dusted during operations and blasting. 2. Noise: Mine noise is unbearable, especially at night. We can quite clearly hear noise from mining, washery and train movements, for example dozers and track noise. 3. Lights: Mainly from coal loader and mine vehicles running around with flashing lights. Some nights the whole sky is clearly lit up for miles. 4. Drinking water: Drinking water is unusable because of contaminated dust. We have been forced to buy bottled water. We are aready finding it increasingly difficult to live as close as we are, we are scared that any changes could in turn make the property unliveable.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Grantley Blake
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 3:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
lee rodger
158 New England Gully Road
Moonbi NSW 2353
Dear Premier
415 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
During my life I have had various members of my family affected by exposure to toxic chemicals that they were told were "perfectly safe" These illness proved they were not, and I note that now are mostly banned. The precautionary principle was applied in banning them. Why than are we not acting with due caution in the area of mining? How is it that elected representatives can ignore risks to the resources...that is all the resources not just mineral, that this country has.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments, lets leave some legacy for out children that they will not have to clean up and something they can use.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
lee rodger
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 3:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sue Wilmott
2805 Blackville Road
Blackville NSW 2343
416 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on the Liverpool Plains, one of the most productive food growing regions in the world and in disbelief, I am reading that this Government is placing a higher value on mining and extractive industries over the very basics of human existence-clean water and food!!
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
What could be a more significant resource than our water, soils and ability to grow food for a growing world population (one that is predicted to reach 9 billion people by 2020!!) This surely should be the highest priority for any government anywhere in the world! Australia is the envy of many countries yet this government still does not recognise that our water resources and our land for food growing is our greatest asset and resource. What is bringing in the dollars into the economy at present? Our agricultural industry. If our strategic land use areas are quarantined for food only we will continue to reap the economic benefits for generations to come. With rising populations across the world, Australia will be in an ideal position to provide our most important significant resource - FOOD- not only for our own needs but also for global export. We hear daily of the harmful effects of the fossil fuel industry, carbon emissions and global warming but few politicians act with integrity and vision to do what they can to change policies for the good of the planet. I therefore, strongly
417 | P a g e urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and introduce sensible, common-sense policies which benefit all Australians, both now and into the future.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sue Wilmott
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 3:53 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Angie Smith
Girrawheen
Bellata NSW 2397
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I run a dryland farming and beef cattle operation in NW NSW.
418 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I have read the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer's Initial Report on the Review of coal seam gas activities in NSW. One of the terms of reference for the Chief Scientist was to "identify and assess any gaps in the identification and management of risk arising from coal seam gas exploration, assessment and production, particularly as they relate to human health, the environment and water catchments". Professor O'Kane acknowledges gaps in the available information on the coal seam gas industry and its possible effects on the environment and humans. She acknowledged that more had to be done by government and the csg industry to fill these gaps. How can you propose amendments that prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and community when the Chief Scientist is advising that more science has to be carried out to fill a gap in knowledge? Is this what you call balance?? From here it looks like the economic benefit of the resource is far outweighing the effects on the environment, our water, our farms and our communities. 'The future of our people and our environment cannot be bought and sold for all the gas and money in the world, and nor should it be".
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Angie Smith
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
419 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 4:46 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We own and operate a 1600ha cattle and farming enterprise in NSW within the Lithgow City Council area. We are now in our 60's and have over the last 13 years subdivided (at great expense to us) our property into blocks from 100 to 300 acres. Now that we have decided to sell our property the DA of a mine on our boundary has drastically reduced any chance of us selling. As we live in a picture perfect Capertee Valley the thought of living that close to a mine scares most prospective buyers. It is wrong that the government let mining happen in the widest enclosed canyon in the world that holds 10% of Australia's biodiversity, which is located only 176 kilometres from Penrith CBD. We have 2 daughters and six grandchildren and they don't even won't to come and live here anymore with the threat of the mines. They the mines are a threat to us continuing a viable farming enterprise especially when our water quantity and quality are at risk, they threaten our right to a peaceful existence with the visual and noise impact, property values, and the fact they are not prepared or required to purchase a decent buffer Zone around their mines is a lack of hindsight by money hungry governments wanting revenue now and not thinking of the long term impact on the farming communities. The place where Centennial Coal have a DA on is Genowlan Mountain and holds the diverse plant,bird and ecology found in NSW. How can our governments be so short sighted?
420 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. because they effect: *Australian Farmers, *Their wives and children. *Their property values. *Their water quality and quantity. *Their health both physical and mental. *The environment. *Mining is being allowed for short term gain. *Has the government sat back and asked what next after the mining boom, after our water is gone or polluted to the extent it can't be used to feed our nation. What next after our top soils have gone. What next after they the mines are allowed to revegetate their mine sights with wattle trees not what was their before. We need a government that is for the long term future of the residents of our nation, not just the short term interlopers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 4:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
421 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dr B. R. Huxtable
121 Hill St Orange
NSW 2800
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Bird Enthusiast- leads walks Orange Botanic Gardens etc Country Physician. O.A.M. FRACP.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Dr B. R. Huxtable
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 4:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
422 | P a g e
Tim Wolfgang
Loloma
Denman NSW 2328
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a 4th generation Wolfgang living on our 2500 acre farm near Denman. Without our knowledge, Ian McDonald granted an exploration lease that covers our farm. We do not want to sell our farm or to have it mined. These proposed changes will m ake it even harder to protect our property that has been in our family for over 100 years.
Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. These are clear evidence that the State Government will bow to any pressure from large Mining Companies without care for the residents of NSW. The current government is as corrupt as the last NSW government. The only vote I will make in future is to abolish state government altogether.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Tim Wolfgang
423 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 5:42 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Phillip & Fleur Morgan
Battery Hill Gunnedah
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We grow crops in intensive irrigated agriculture on the rich liverpool plains on 1100 ha.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
424 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Phillip & Fleur Morgan
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 5:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Paul Kreuzen
159 Cope rd Po.Box 233
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
425 | P a g e
We live on a small rural block just out of the historical town of Gulgong. we are in the process of trying to stop a workers camp destroying the fabric of our small society.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. We like to state how repulsive the state system is to stop foreign enterprise from doing whatever they like to Australian communities. The communities are left without any help from those that swore to project just those values. We as a community have firsthand experience of fighting for our very existing's and still dealing with this same issue after two years even with help from the council, local member and federal member and even with getting the proposal turned down though the JRRP system only to find us in the Land & environmental court. Most likely this will not be the last stop either as they can still appeal it in the high court. These processes can happen when there is weak governing and the public is left vulnerable to foreign dollar. The traitors that are now trying to weaken Australians democratic system even further should wear the burden of their actions. For the last 10 years we have seen decisions made for relative small gain in the big picture of future prospect of this country. Worry about today rather than tomorrow is the wrong way around. Look after tomorrow and today has been looked after already, this principal has not been applied to in the last 10 years and has seen the reverse. The mining industry has seen protection from government levels never seen before and all to no avail, this has come to light in the taxes paid by the mining industry to the federal government. If the mining industry had to abide to the same tax rules as normal businesses, than we would not see the mess the country is in now. The government wants to make the problem now bigger again without addressing their big mistakes of the past 10 years. It leave the general public with no option but to think that all levels of government are now infiltrated by the corporate foreign dollar and what we see is not Australian democracy anymore but communistic stand over tactics to be implemented though bad legislation. I therefore urge you do not take this traitor's path of dealing with the democratic rights of the Australian public and abandon these proposed amendments.
426 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul Kreuzen
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 5:45 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Hamparsum
2168 Pullaming RD
Breeza NSW 2381
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a family farm on the fertile Liverpool Plains growing wheat, cotton, sorghum and sunflowers. Our business is now being threatened by the neighbouring Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine which will damage our access to clean water, create unacceptable dust pollution and effect prime agricultural farming land forever.
427 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and to stand behind your coalition pre- election promises of protecting strategic agricultural lands. These proposed amendments veto this protection and put mining above agriculture and the community. Mining is not sustainable, it is a one off rape of the land that will destroy the lands' productive capabilities forever - future generations will judge us for the actions we make today that effect our ability to feed the human race.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Hamparsum
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 5:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
428 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Paul & Judi Sheedy
"Longlea North" 1075 Marys Mount Road
Gunnedah NSW 2380
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a small family mixed cropping enterprise and agricultural contracting business 30 km west of Gunnedah.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
Mr O'Farrell, members of our community voted for the Coalition at the last state election because we realised that we need significant reform in terms of the land use conflict that is presenting itself not only in the north west NSW and Liverpool Plains area. We are so terrible dissapointed at the inadequacy of this government to truly seek meaningful reform in which (1) scientific data and
429 | P a g e research is considered (2) all factors contributing to a strong economy are considered - which is not just monetary concerns, it is also the health and well being of not only the community but also the environment (3) that farmers are business people too, and have and will continue to contribute significantly to these factors long after the 'mining boom' is over. Listen to the people who voted you in. This is not just about short term monetary gain and short term employment. Listen to us!
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul & Judi Sheedy
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 5:53 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dr Wayne Somerville
79 Toonumbar Rd
Kyogle NSW 2474
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
430 | P a g e
My wife Susan and I own and farm a 1200acre cattle property in the Kyogle area. Our livlihood depends on clean, safe bore and creek water. We are concerned that the interests of small businesses like ours are too often sacrificed to benefit a wealthy powerful few. We support Liberal values of a fair go for all and support for the individual.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to do the right thing and abandon or rewrite these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Dr Wayne Somerville
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 6:14 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
431 | P a g e
Lynette Dunn
Bundong Station Coolabah
NSW 2831
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I run a mixed farming enterprise in the western division of NSW and we are very disappointed with your government and its management of the mining versus farming. You are totally detrimenting the farming in this state with no thought to long term viability for food production or for the people who produce it. You were swept tp power and the power seems to have gone to your heads. Rethink what you are doing before the destruction is beyond redemption/
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. NSW livelihood is at stake and you in the parliamenmt are quickly starting to destroy this state,
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Lynette Dunn
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 6:27 PM
To: Danica Leys
432 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Eva Rizana
51 Minni Ha Ha Rd
Katoomba NSW 2790
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the president of the Cullen Bullen Lifestyle group where we have seen the impact to community from putting profits before people. Everyone deserves the opportunity to make a living and while it is sad, we often see that one industry (mostly mining)can negatively impact the opportunities for others.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments as i firmly believe we can find a more balanced way to address everyone's needs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Eva Rizana
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 6:37 PM
433 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Gavin Douglas
23 Bathurst St Perthville
NSW 2795
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have been a farmer for 35 years. I have become over that time progressively more aware of the delicate interaction of ecology, climate, water resource,and rural social continuity. I ceased using chemicals 12 years ago, and undertook radical changes in management which rely on my working with the above criteria, rather than in spite of them. There were considerable, quantified improvements in, among other factors, stock and land health, rainfall water use, and last but not least, sustainable, "real environment" based profitability.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
434 | P a g e
I believe that the above amendments threaten the long term future of a progressive food production based rural fabric, for a short term, ill-planned, 'big business' gain. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Gavin Douglas
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 6:38 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Cathy Vlatko
9 Glenview Cres. Hunters Hill
NSW 2110
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
435 | P a g e
We live mostly in Sydney but have a small property in the Central West of NSW. We are increasingly concerned at the lack of protection for our agricultural areas. Some of the larger farms have been operating for many years and remain very productive. Short sighted exploitation to meet mining interests is not the best use of the land for future generations which will also need to eat the produce of these farms. The area also attracts many tourists which keeps smaller towns like Oberon healthy.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and consider the people that live and visit these areas. Expansive open cut mining in the Hunter is a disgrace - it has ruined lives and livelihoods - children's health has been horribly affected. The full social cost of these long term legacies needs to be considered in future decision making if we are to avoid replicating this across the state of NSW. Your proposed amendments to legislation are not looking at these broader, longer term social and health issues and this is disappointing decision making by your government. Yours sincerely Cathy Vlatko
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Cathy Vlatko
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 7:22 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Phillip & Maxine McDonald
"Longlands" 139 Boddington Road
Emerald Hill NSW 2380
436 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run an 800ha property including both dryland and irrigation enterprises. We have been on this property since 1927 and are 3rd generation farmers.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
We have adopted best management practices to care for our land to not only be sustainable, but to leave the country in a better condition than when we took over from my parents. We strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Phillip & Maxine McDonald
437 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:06 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
DrLen Palmer
728 Bridle Track Duramana
NSW 2795
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I work at a a University and have 600acres outside Bathurst running Australian White sheep.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when
438 | P a g e assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
DrLen Palmer
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:08 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Suzanne Newbery
'Mymundi' Marys Mount Road
Marys Mount NSW 2380
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
439 | P a g e
We live on 400 acres on Marys Mount Road, Marys Mount. Joe and I are raising 3 primary school children who all attend school at Gunnedah.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Suzanne Newbery
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 8:32 PM
To: Danica Leys
440 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Tom Cameron
11-91 Millswyn St South Yarra
Vic 3141
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I grew up on a farm in NSW and believe a farmers autonomy and control of resources are vital to a vibrant and sustainable future, much more so than the rights of mining companies.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
441 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Tom Cameron
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 9:49 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Grant Chambers
Kawarrah Bundella
NSW 2343
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am semi retired Graingrower,Grazier farming 850 hectares on both the Liverpool plains & the Warrumbungle Range. I am being succeeded by my son with two children & wife. Their home is on the Warrumbungle country Mount View,We have been jointly farming these two properties along with another leased Plains property for the past 38 years
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working
442 | P a g e landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Grant Chambers
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:49 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Alex Lithgow
Knotawurrie P.O. Box 199
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
443 | P a g e
I live in a small community called Gulgong that is currently objecting to a Temporary Workers Camp being built on the edge of our village. This overseas Company called the Mac Group has taken our Council to the Land and Environment Court to Appeal their refusal of the Development Application. As this DA was opposed by the Community in general, based on many concerns the Mid West Regioal Council took on the concerns and had a closer look at the development and found that there are several issues of concern to all Rate Payers of the Shire and have arrived at the refusal on some Infrastructure issues as well as Community issues. If the Democratic right of the community to engage in the overall approval is over looked by future applications based on "BIG MONEY" I think this current O'Farrell Government have gone too far!!!
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Alex Lithgow
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 11:15 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Boyle
8 Morvan Street
WEST RYDE NSW 2114
444 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am concerned about the arrogant manner in which CSG industry ignore the rights of property owners and simply walk onto other peoples' properties without first asking permission to enter. Then, once the gas or minerals are extracted, the land is left pock-marked like the mountains of the moon, with polluted waters and a poisoned environment filled with toxic chemicals and pollutants. The NSW O'Farrell Government told a very different story before the election. It seems that we have been lied to. The proposed changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy represent vandalism of the worst kind. It will lead to the destruction of our environment, water, food, prime agricultural land, health, rural families, communities, native fauna and vegetation. The government is putting money before all of this. If we look after our rural industries and environment not only will we be able to feed ourselves-which is in much doubt the way our farmers are being treated-but we will have a viable export industry of some of the cleanest food in the world. The way in which the O'Farrell government has done the opposite to what it promised when in opposition could lead to it being a one term government. NSW Chief Scientist, Mary O'Kane, opined that the NSW coal seam miners lack public trust. Serious concerns have been expressed over the environment and particularly the affect on water, landholders legal rights, land access and use, peoples' health, operational processes and CSG industry regulation and compliance. We need a whole of state study into the mining industry and its impact on the environment-the health impacts are a major community concern. The CSG industry is out of control for the want of good judicious government legislation, and sanctions for those who do not comply. Not the current, appalling, lopsided, proposed planning changes. Also, the cumulative effects of CSG must be known before more destruction is wrought on our once beautiful lands. The government needs to understand that gases and minerals left in the ground will still be there in decades to come, but if the destruction of our farms and land continue, then we will all die of starvation, and there we be no market then for this greedy, rapacious, out-of-control extractive industry.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state
445 | P a g e and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge the NSW Government to abandon these wrongful proposed amendments, and instead, convene an independent scientific and judicial inquiry into all matters relating to the CSG and mineral extractive industry. There is only one go at extracting coal and minerals from our land- but farming will last until the end of time-if we are intelligent enough to care for our most important industry and our clean waters that feed and nourishes us all.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Boyle
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 11:17 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Lalla Reeves
7 Mitchell St
Blayney NSW @&((
Dear Premier
446 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a concerned citizen who has now retired from farming and have seen the damage caused by mining on good productive land.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. We must preserve our good farming land for future generations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Lalla Reeves
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
447 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 12:56 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Wendy Craig Duncan
52 Skinners Road Pillar Valley
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I own a small cattle and horse property a few klms from the proposed csg wells at Glenugie.This region is the coldstream water catchment ,and has significant rainfall .Over the past 3years there have been several massive flood events,so the idea of turning this land into a gas field is ludicrous .The toxic product water in holding ponds would regularly be flooded and would contaminate the rivers ,groundwater and soil. We know that the cement used in the well casings has a limited life ,and as stated in APPEA's own reports they will all eventually fail .This will lead to fugitive emissions of methane and hydrogen sulphide, and contamination of aquifers and bores In light of all the problems becoming evident in countries around the world concerning unconventional gas mining, surely the government should be adopting the precautionary principle and not be making it easier to fast track the approvals of multi national oil and gas companies licences.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments,and listen to the many groups and associations that will be adversely affected if this industry is allowed to go ahead unchecked. Sincerely Wendy Craig Duncan.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
448 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Wendy Craig Duncan
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 7:00 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ty Parsons
"Eulalia" 198 Emby Road
Coonamble NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the 5th generation on Eulalia west of Coonamble breeding cattle with 1500acres of farming. For the first time, even after the droughts do we feel our future is being threatened by CSG. We have a son who feels that being a farmer is not a long term viability because of the impact that CSG would have on the environment, particularly the underground water. If mining is not stopped the 6th generation on this sustainable property and another young Farmer will be lost.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Mining is not sustainable, our farming practices are, tried and proven!
449 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ty Parsons
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 7:16 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Peter Holledge
"Longreach" 930 Quia Station Rd
Gunnedah NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a third generation farmer and run a 581ha farm west of Gunnedah. The gas industry and open cut mining are both causing concern in our area. Our son has been working with us for a year and it worries me that there will be no future for him to be a fourth generation farmer. We need a government that is willing to protect the future of farming in NSW.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
450 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Peter Holledge
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 8:09 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
FJ McKinley
"IOWA" 328 Waverly Road
CAROONA NSW 2343
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am retired and still live on the farm.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle
451 | P a g e consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
FJ McKinley
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 8:37 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jenny Barry
215 Peregrine Rd
BILLYWILLINGA NSW 2795
452 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 128 hectare block in the Central Tablelands of NSW which is part of an area of prime agricultural land.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and to reaffirm your party's pre- election promise to exclude farming land from any mining from which you have so blatantly walked away from.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Barry
453 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 8:54 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Lisa Norman
'Rowena' 566 Clift Road
Spring Ridge NSW 2343
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a 3000 acre farming property on the Liverpool Plains. It is a broadacre dry land cropping enterprise as well as running about 60 cows and calves. We have two children who are in High School and it will only be a few years before they may be looking to get involved in our family business.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. We need a balanced approach to development that will not place the economic significance of a mining resource over our water, our health, our community and our ability to feed this country for many generations to come.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
454 | P a g e
Lisa Norman
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:09 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Roderick Jamieson
GILGAI FARM PO Box 118
Nagambie VIC 3608
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a horse breeder based in Nagambie and a member of the Thoroughbred Breeders Association.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations
455 | P a g e and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Roderick Jamieson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:10 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Caroline George
26 Croads Esp
Smithtown NSW 2440
Dear Premier
456 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a soil scientist and have property in Sydney and on the mid-north coast. I am very concerned about the massive increase in mining activity in our area.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Caroline George
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:18 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Susan Lyle
Ranken Park
Curlewis NSW 2381
Dear Premier
457 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family partnership operate a mixed farming and cattle business on the Breeza Plain.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
What constitutes 'state significant'. I believe the Government should do a lot more investigation into the final bottom line of economic benefit before they consider this. I give the example in our case of Shenhua Watermark. Shenhua Watermark will be exporting their coal to Shenhua China for possibly a loss. Final bottom line for NSW Government no profits/no royalties. Not very clever when in the meantime they damage the water,soils etc. and the Government having approved this mine, knowing damage will occur, will then be left to pay the compensation bill.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Susan Lyle
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
458 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:18 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Tim & Peta Craig
Umagarlee
Breeza NSW 2381
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are a family farm in the Breeza area of the Liverpool Plains. Our two sons & their families are part of our operation. Our properties are highly productive-both dryland & irrigated crops & beef cattle production.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
459 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Tim & Peta Craig
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:33 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robbin Binks
PO Box 284
Mudgee NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
460 | P a g e
I am a physiotherapist from Mudgee. I grew up in the Bylong Valley which will be raped and plundered in the not too distant future if KEPCO has its way.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robbin Binks
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:41 AM
To: Danica Leys
461 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Arthur Mitchell
Yarraman Park Stud 516 Nandowra Raod
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My family own and run a 1350ha thoroughbred horse stud in the Upper Hunter Valley. WE run 400 thoroughbreds and 300+ cows. We employ 18 people
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. If the presence of open cut mining continues to expand in the Hunter Valley we will consider selling our farm and moving out of the area.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Arthur Mitchell
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 10:13 AM
462 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Richard & Dorothy CHALMERS
'Wychwood' 569 Hermitage Road
Pokolbin NSW 2320
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
For 10 years we have owned a 10ha property situated amongst local Wineries, Cellar Doors, Accommodation Providers and Restaurants all of whom work particularly hard to provide a very attractive tourist destination for huge numbers of Australians and overseas visitors. The Hunter Valley is also home to serious Horse Breeding providing new blood to inject into a huge Australian and International Racing Industry. The future of the agriculture and horse breeding industries, including the welfare of these hard working landowners, are about to be adversely impacted by the Amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy 2007 bout to be implemented. We believe the NSW State Government has reneged on all of it's prior promises made to these two Industries since gaining power.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when
463 | P a g e assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Richard & Dorothy CHALMERS
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 10:17 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Brenda McDonough
PO Box 1206
Windsor NSW 2756
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
464 | P a g e
I am a migration agent specializing in the Horse Breeding, Racing, Horticulture and Agriculture sector and have been running my business since 1990. The Australian Horse Breeding and Racing industry in the Hunter Valley is considered the one of the best in the world. I have worked with the industry since 1996 and am shocked when I travel of the Hunter Valley now. Once pristine, now it is a scared landscape. Investors who rule middle eastern countries and more recently significant Asian investors have invested in Horse Breeding in Australia. What does this say to them? What does this say to Horse Breeding businesses - would you like them to take their multi-million dollar investments and throw it away and/or move the businesses out of NSW?
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. This is a broken promise and while we have come to expect this from politicians the time has come for the rural sector to stand up against this. I urge you to consider if you are really happy to do this - will this stand up to scrutiny in the future, would you be called in the future to explain your actions to the ICAC? I guess the last State government thought they were above the law, but if any person remotely associated with the current government benefits from this our industry will pursue this as far as the ICAC and beyond if necessary. I will certainly be more out spoken at the next election and am about to raise this with my local member, both federal and state. Do the right thing premier! It is not all about money - Australia was build on mate-ship and being able to trust the person standing next to you at the front line. Prove to us that we can actually trust you!
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
465 | P a g e
Brenda McDonough
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 11:18 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Andrew Wilson
34 Numulgi Rd Woodlawn via Lismore
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have a 300 cow dairy 10km north of Lismore and rely on clean water for fresh secure food.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality
466 | P a g e and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Wilson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 11:23 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
William Adams
Lambrook
Mullaley NSW 3279
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
467 | P a g e
My family have been situated near Mulalley on the Liverpool Plains since 1946 and my mothers family on the other side of Mullaley since 1923. In that time, we as stewards of the land, have taken great care in our management of this very productive as of the state, making sure that the land will be able to sustain many future generations with the production of high quality grain and beef. The threat of CSG gas being sort in this area is most unsettling as there is so much evidence available showing the damage exploration and drilling can cause in this extremely fragile environment where subterranean water is so vital. In fact, from the reading I have done, I can see very little good resulting from this industry. I am so relieved that we have evidence from the USA and from Queensland warning us of the complications associated with CSG. Also, our Chief Scientist, Mary McCabe is warning you .
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. As a government, your responsibility lies with the people of NSW and the generations to come, their health, their food and their water, all of which are threatened by CSG. Please do not be tempted by all the spin from the mining companies and the dollars that they offer.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
468 | P a g e
William Adams
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 11:40 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Denise Gilbert
6 Forbesdale Close
Forbesdale NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in Forbesdale, 5kms south of Gloucester, with wonderful views of the valley and also of the valley floor, the AGL CSG project and the proposed Rocky Hill open cut coal mine. Your recent edict about 2km exclusion zones for CSG does nothing to protect me and my family as this edict was made AFTER the AGL project had been approved and also because my little community is deemed to be too small to be protected. The Rocky Hill mine, if approved, will be approximately 1.2 km from my house (where's the 2km exclusion zone for open cut coal mines???). Obviously your legislation is designed to ensure that not only will the Rocky Hill mine be approved, but so will every other type of mine in NSW. Your amendments to the SEPP are ill-advised.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has
469 | P a g e taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
As someone who is strongly impacted by decisions made by you and your Government, I urge you to demonstrate that you stand by the statement you made when you wore the "Water not Coal" t-shirt and gave your "no ifs, no buts, a guarantee" statement and abandon these proposed amendments. If you did that, I might even consider voting for your party/coalition in the next election.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Denise Gilbert
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 11:51 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kim Hall
159 Upper Avon Road
470 | P a g e
Craven NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I have a 134ha cattle and horse breeding property at Stratford/Craven south of Gloucester. We also have a 15yo son. I already feel depressed and disempowered by the current effects of mining companies and government and their disregard for the real impacts on land owners and families. I am sick of the company spiel relating to computer modelling without any real measurements.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
471 | P a g e
Kim Hall
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 1:01 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
HILARY O'BRIEN
30 WINDSOR CT
GOONELLABAH NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a currency trader, and my husband is a financial adviser, based on the Northern Rivers. We are neither hippies nor radicals.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. "Significance of the (mining) resource" should never outweigh the significance of the biggest resource that uses it - namely humans. It is TIME NOW to accelerate implementation of green energy as a true alternative, so that it becomes affordable, and to become world leaders in this method of power.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
472 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
HILARY O'BRIEN
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 1:13 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Col & Beryl Franklin
14 Forbesdale cl Forbesdale
NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife & I moved to Gloucester five years ago because of health reasons we needed to have much cleaner air also one of our grandchildren has a severe lung problem she stay's with us on numerous occasion's what a pity that the minister does not live 1km from a open cut mine he then may appreciate the plight of all those affected & then have a different view
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
473 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Col & Beryl Franklin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 1:31 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Matt Peterson
140 Devoncourt Rd Uralla
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on small rural acreage outside the township of Uralla with my young family and I grew up on a beef cattle property near Casino.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
474 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Matt Peterson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 1:32 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
ALLAN RIORDAN
"DURANTE " 1880 NORMANS ROAD PIALLAWAY
NSW 2342
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 2000ha grain producing farm together with my two sons on the Liverpool Plains
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.I am curtain future generations will judge governments of this era very harshly for what they are allowing to happen to some of the best farming land in the world.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
475 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
ALLAN RIORDAN
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 1:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Andrya Hart
98 Tuntable Creek Road
The Channon NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have a farm in Northern NSW. I also work locally, as a nurse.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of
476 | P a g e developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Andrya Hart
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 2:12 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robert Campbell
'Sportsman's Hollow' 429 Cope Road
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
477 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robert Campbell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 3:11 PM
To: Danica Leys
478 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Suzy Coleman
26 Janet Street Russell Lea
RUSSELL LEA NSW 2046
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 300 hectare farm in the state's west and believe mining on the scale permitted will wipe out future food supplies for Australia,ruin tourism and generally make NSW a living hell.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
479 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Suzy Coleman
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 3:15 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Tom Welham
2952 Clarence Way
Grafton NSW 2460
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a small business as a craftsman in the Clarence Valley in the rural area around Copmanhurst. As well as my business I grow much of my own food organically and provide to friends and family as well.I have lived in the area for my whole life and consider clean air, water and soil as vitally important to my lifestyle and livelihood and that of my friends and family.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the
480 | P a g e economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. To do any less I consider to be treason on the part of the government, and proof that the state government does not consider the people of NSW at all, but that they are owned by the mining industry
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Tom Welham
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 4:16 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John & Barbara Pearce
481 | P a g e
1472 Martindale Road Martindale
Via Denman NSW 2328
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My wife and I own and operate our property "Springdale" as a successful business and have done for the past 46 years. We moved to the Upper Hunter 46 years ago, attracted by the beautiful agricultural land in the area. We run a 600 acre property in the Martindale Valley, providing grazing for 100 -150 horses, and around 50 head of beef cattle on irrigated and dryland pastures. We have grave concerns watching the mining activities increasing continually around us.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments, and give strong thoughts to the future of our country and our means of providing fresh food to our fellow Australians. We are living in an area that is becoming more and more like a moonscape as apposed to the beauty that was present, and has now been removed. The mines and coal seam gas getting closer into these areas is going to make it impossible for us and others to continue agricultural pursuits under these circumstances. These extractive industries although they make a lot of money for the Government and others in a
482 | P a g e short period, they ruin the land and the water supply for centuries to come. We need to keep all the good agricultural land that we can for the future of our country.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John & Barbara Pearce
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 4:24 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Martin Daley
77Eaglehawk Close
Tyalgum Creek NSW 2484
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retired male of 60 living on 22 acres in the Northern Rivers.
483 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Martin Daley
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 5:27 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Gwen Trimble
484 | P a g e
PO Box 20446
Nimbin NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an older woman (60 yrs)who previously has never been involved or moved to direct action however, I feel that there would be real danger posed to our water and agricultural viability if the State Government's proposed changes to their planning approvals process for Mining Companies is adopted. To date the State Government has chosen to ignore the large percentage of their Constituents who have been vocal and strident in their opposition the current policy to allow what would seem to be very generous access to State resources. They are not yours to give away - you hold them in trust for all Australians and their descendants. If this percentage of the electorate were voicing their opposition to any other policy, the Government would be listening and acting. Don't you get it - you work for the men and women who comprise your electorate not the Mining Companies - or, maybe that is indeed the point - you do work for the mining companies. How sad and shameful.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
485 | P a g e
Although i have obviously submitted the wording drafted by NSW Farmers that is simply because I couldn't have made and phrased the points better. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Sincerely Gwen Trimble
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Gwen Trimble
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 5:49 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Carl Heydon
190 Gungas rd
Nimbin NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a 55 year old man who lives and works in a rural community and I a deeply disturbed that the short term interests and profits of mining companies are held in greater regard than those of the families who have built their lives and cared for the environment over generations.
486 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Carl Heydon
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 6:27 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
487 | P a g e
Lyn Coombe
13 Garner ST Lue
NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
i am A registered nurse working for the Dept Of Health. I am extremely concerned of how the mental and medical health of members of the community are greatly effected by living in close proximity to a mine.. Working at Mudgee Disrict Hospital, Mudgee distict having multiple coal mines I have seen the health effects, especially related to noise and stress issues. This is very costly to the Dept of Health presently and in the future, Profit can not be placed before the well being of communities.. communities must have their input in the approval process.Communities must be the main prioty.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Lyn Coombe
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 6:41 PM
To: Danica Leys
488 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dennis Eldridge
479 Hermitage Road Pokolbin
NSW 2320
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have an integrated wine /tourism business in Pokolbin,Lower Hunter Valley, NSW.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
489 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Dennis Eldridge
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 6:55 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John & Margaret Nicholson
3 Phascogale Crescent
BARRINGTON NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are in our eighties and are worried about the future of our grand children and great grand children with the possible expansion of coal seam gas and coal mining in the Gloucester valley. To our mind it still has not been shown that drilling for coal seam gas does not do irreparable damage to the environment
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
490 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John & Margaret Nicholson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:01 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
scott cater
4505 kyogle rd , lillian rock
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an organic beekeeper & vegetable grower.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has
491 | P a g e taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
scott cater
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Evonne Irwin
1 Ackeron St
Mayfield NSW 2304
492 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a concerned resident of Newcastle, mother of two and taxpayer originally from a farming family in the Hunter Valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Evonne Irwin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
493 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 10:15 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rod Blay
67 Sutton St
Berrima NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in the area known as the Southern Highlands. Having moved here from Sydney a few years ago I have become aware of the NSW State Government's attitude to the most significant resources this country has and they are it's land, water and the people. Only the continued corruption of government could explain it's willingness to place the interests of foreign mining companies ahead of the future interests of the people.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality
494 | P a g e and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
Wake up Barry, mining is a short term, quick buck. Be a true leader and leave a great legacy, not a desecrated landscape of big holes and poisoned water.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rod Blay
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 10:54 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Giselle Bell
42 Black Lead Lane Gulgong
NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
495 | P a g e
I am a mother of four from the central west.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Giselle Bell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 11:59 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rachel Saunders
496 | P a g e
139 Testorelli's Road
Copeland NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Over the past 12 years we have carefully planned & our move to the Gloucester area, earning enough money in the city to move to a cleaner more sustainable life in the country. Now we are here we find that despite there being an aim for the government to protect our waterways and our natural environment in its 2021 targets"The NSW Government will work with the community to protect our local environment and provide more opportunities to enjoy parks, waterways and natural bushland. We will work with landholders to revegetate and improve land, manage weeds and pests in our national parks and improve the management of water to protect natural habitats. We will protect high value conservation land, native vegetation and biodiversity, as well as target illegal dumping. ... Reduce the impact of invasive species at priority sites on NPWS parks and reserves leading to a positive response of native biodiversity at 50% of these sites by October 2015 protect and conserve land, biodiversity and native vegetation • Identify and seek to acquire land of high conservation and strategic conservation value, for permanent conservation measures • Establish voluntary arrangements with landowners over the next decade to bring – an average 20,000 hectares per year of private land under conservation management – an average 300,000 hectares per year of private land being improved for sustainable management protect rivers, wetlands and coastal environments • Improve the environmental health of wetlands and catchments through actively managing water for the environment by 2021 We will use the knowledge and experience of local communities to target our resources to protect and restore natural ecosystems. We will work with Catchment Management Authorities and local community groups to protect and improve habitats on private lands. Actions to conserve biodiversity and native vegetation include: • Regenerate degraded natural bushland, including riverbanks, and degraded waterways through a $10 million fund" but our state government proposes to allow the degradation of our water and natural environment through large scale mining of coal and gas. The two are in complete opposition so how can we trust a government that makes such claims and then reneges in the face of mining. A process that will destroy the environment and all who live near.Therefore this new proposal is preposterous and cannot reasonably be supported by anyone wishing to see a future for our country & our planet. Therefore
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments & stick by your 2021 environmental targets and value the community instead. What is life without people and community??
497 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rachel Saunders
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 8:45 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
charles scourfield po box 942 moss vale NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own a small farm in Sutton Forest within the lease area being explored for coal by Hume Coal. I have owned property in the Southern Highlands for nearly 50 years, long before there was any threat of coal mining. We are within the Sydney Water Catchment area, and we have grave fears for the potential likely damage to our aquifers.
498 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects.
Before the last State election,the Premier Mr O'Farrell is on record of guaranteeing, yes guaranteeing, that he would not allow mining in a water catchment area. Apart from damage to the aquifers, we refer to the hypocrisy of allowing coal mining which contributes to climate change. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
charles scourfield
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 1:07 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sarah Reardon
"Five Mile" 672 Mystery Road
CAROONA NSW 2343
Dear Premier
499 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on a farm between Caroona and Breeza, on the Liverpool Plains of New South Wales. I am only 28 years old. Premier O’Farrell, this could mean that I may be blessed with another 6 or 7 decades worth of living. I envisage enjoying these years on the Liverpool Plains without mining, petroleum production and extractive industries. These industries have no place here and I will fight to protect my home from them. Thus;
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
The Liverpool Plains is my home, my future, and the place that sustains a happy, healthy and fulfilling life for me. Mining, petroleum production and extractive industries threaten to steal all that I hold near and dear to me about this area and my way of life here. Premier O’Farrell, please do not allow mining, petroleum production and extractive industries to destroy my way of life, my health, my home and my future. Please do not further weaken my ability to stand up for my rights and what is deeply important to me. Please do not sacrifice the Liverpool Plains for these industries. Please do not make these changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007; I strongly urge you to abandon the proposed amendments. My future and the Liverpool Plains’ future are in your hands Premier O’Farrell. Please; do not let us down.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
500 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Sarah Reardon
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 3:04 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Phillip
Stekhoven Baroona Heights, Pyangle Road
Lue NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own and run a small cattle fattening enterprise in the NSW Central Tablelands that is directly threatened by a proposed open cut lead/silver mine next door to my property. Many members of the community are expressing serious concerns about the impact on them and the environment that this proposal will have should it proceed. We have witnessed this impact on our near neighbour village of Wollar which no longer exists because the environment is now unliveable due to noise and dust. How is it possible that a village, gazetted in the 1850's has been wiped out as result of an approvals process that does not take them into consideration at all? This is not the Dark Ages we live in. Corporations should not take precedence before people homes, livelihoods and culture. This is apparently a democracy we live in so how about applying some consideration to the people who put you in these positions in the first place.
501 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. The imbalance between corporations and the needs of community must be able to addressed by all parties including those with most to lose.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Phillip
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 4:41 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Erin Woodward
16 York street
Taree NSW 2430
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a young lawyer, with a husband and one child. I live in the Manning Valley.
502 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Erin Woodward
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 5:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Findlay
503 | P a g e
34 Quarry Road
Teralba NSW 2284
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a 65 year old mechanic who had a dream to retire at Gloucester on our small property in Forbesdale, 900meters from the proposed mine site. That dream has now been destroyed by the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the Government.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Findlay
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 5:56 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Matt Woodward
504 | P a g e
16 York st
Taree NSW 2430
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I watch with dismay as my government runs the state as a business ,not for the best interest of the people or the environment, but for profit. As a father I try to I still an ethic that happiness is the most important thing in life and that comes through community, family and love. Money barely registers a mention, acquisition, consumption and commerce does not equate to happy.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. You are here to serve the people, and money is not necessarily the means to improve the lifestyle and happiness of your constituents.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Matt Woodward
505 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 6:01 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Lorraine Findlay
34 Quarry Road
Teralba NSW 2284
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have a small property on Fairbairns Lane at Forbesdale Gloucester. My husband and I were considering retiring at Gloucester until the Rocky Hill Coal Project was proposed. We could never live within 900 meters of an open cut coal mine and should not be expected to do so. The Government along with GRL have taken our choices for our future out of our hands. My husband is dusted with asbestos and his disease is progressing, so to live within 900 meters of an open cut coal mine is not an option. Our concerns of the devaluation of our property with a coal mine on our door step are real and the effect on our retirement portfolio is enormous. The environmental and social impact on Gloucester will be devastating. Please listen. I am speaking loud and clear I don't want an open cut coal mine in Gloucester.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
506 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Lorraine Findlay
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 7:29 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Leonard Draper
254 Dunns Rd
Doubtful Creek NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own a property near Kyogle, Northern NSW. I along with many friends in my area are concerned about the encroachment of mining in our area, in particular coal seam gas gold and anitimony mining.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
507 | P a g e development is frightening., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. There will be a very large and loud reaction if you continue to erode the rights of the people to say what happens to their land and community. Do not treat us as fools, we understand the needs of the nation, we understand how to balance mining and agrilculture, listen to the people. Ignore those who tell you different, we are very well educated in these matters these days.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Leonard Draper
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 8:23 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Don Durrant
137 Vidlers Road
Afterlee NSW 2474
Dear Premier
508 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a beef producer on the north coast of New South Wales. I own nearly a thousand acres of prime agricultural land and rain forest.
I am very concerned about my children's future and my grandchildren's future in view of the Government's apparent disregard for the health and wellbeing of the citizens of this country. I am also very concerned about foreign ownership of our resources. My concern is that these companies will act with total disregard to our welfare. After raping our land, taking the profits, they will just go away and leave us with the mess, most of it irrepairable. I believe in Australia for Australians. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Yours sincerely Don Durrant
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Don Durrant
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 9:02 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Christina Haywood
8/18 Newport Street
Ballina NSW 2478
509 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mature early childhood educator living in the northern rivers of New South Wales. I work with children who will be alive when my time on this earth has long ceased. It is with great concern that I write to you about the recently proposed amendments to the State Enviromental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007. I am concerned that: * Mining interests have priority over other considerations: namely the health and social welfare of the community and the environment. * The essential needs of clean air and pure water are no longer among the Government's top priorities. * That the 'significance of the resource' has been deemed more important than the above natural and essential resources. * Regarding the Government's complete capitulation, indeed sponsoring of an industry which acts with impunity to the needs of communities in close proximity to their mining activities. * The social impact of mining on a community has become of a much lesser value to the Government. * The heavy handedness of this legislation brings Australia closer in essence to countries which are currently undemocratic, with authoritarian hard rule by their Governments.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Christina Haywood
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 1:35 AM
To: Danica Leys
510 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Beth Shelley
190 Hewitt Rd Booerie Creek
NSW 2480
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of two and have three grandchildren and I have a property just outside of Lismore where I live with my daughter and the grandkids. We have a lovely clean creek at the bottom of the hill and cows agisted.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I understand that govts are worried about the economy but destroying the environment with mining will only make us all poorer in the end. Prioritising renewable energy could create new jobs and industries to replace the fossil fuel industries.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
511 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Beth Shelley
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 4:53 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Bill Yates
Amondale Garah
NSW 2405
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 17000ha family agricultural business in northwest NSW.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of
512 | P a g e developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Bill Yates
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 7:03 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
tom crook
60 johnsons rd bumberrah vic 3902
Dear Premier
513 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a field ecologist from Victoria with a.young family.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
tom crook
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 8:04 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ken Lewis
514 | P a g e
9435 Armidale RD Tyringham
NSW 2453
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a Tree-Changer and moved to this area 8 years ago to seek out a better way of livng. I have a 320 acre block on which we grow cerified organic vegetables which we supply mostly to this region. I am now very concerned that mining dvelopments by Anchor Resources will contaminate the water and land and destroy the values of our beatiful area Please stop this dangerous proposal from going futher and causing environmental problems that have already happened to others
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
515 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Ken Lewis
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 10:18 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Greg & Judy Walker
64 Eric St , Bundeena
NSW 2230
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are semi-retirees who this year moved from the Central West of NSW to the coast. Even though we are not part of the farming industry, our previous location helped us to be aware of many issues in this area of concern. We travelled through the Hunter Valley region and saw the devastation of good farming land caused by open cut coal mining. We had discussions with people whose farming enterprises and lives were being affected adversely by open cut coal mining. However, most importantly we are painfully aware that the continued expansion of coal mining means that we as a country are significantly contributing to Climate Change which is already causing distress in the world. This distress and the world's political & economic problems will only compound with increased climate change and exploitation of fossil fuels.
516 | P a g e
Please have the courage and vision to deal with these issues in a way that looks beyond the next budget and the next election and cares for the long term future of our State. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Greg & Judy Walker
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 10:32 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ian Hunter Moore
"Strathmore" Apple Tree Flat
Jerry's Plains NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My family has been farming in the Singleton Shire for over 170 years. For the first 43 years of my working life I was a dairy farmer. Along with my wife, we now own and operate a mixed farming business in the Singleton Shire in the Hunter Valley. Our properties are situated in and around the
517 | P a g e
Historic Village of Jerry's Plains, where we mainly grow lucerne to produce high quality hay for the horse industry including the local Thoroughbred Studs, we also produce premium quality vealers for the Butcher Market including the Sydney markets.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. We voted this Coalition Government in on their pre-election promises about protecting our Water and our high quality agricultural land. This new SEPP amendment is nothing less than an insult to the men and women on the land and the people of this state and the future of NSW. It appears it is very much easier to get an approval to start up a mine in the Hunter Valley than it is to get an approval for a brothel.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ian Hunter Moore
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
518 | P a g e
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 11:34 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robyn Ann Moore
"Strathmore" Apple Tree Flat
Jerry's Plains NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My Husband and I operate two properties in and around the Historic Village of Jerry's Plains in the Singleton Shire in the Hunter Valley, where we produce Vealers for the Butcher Market and grow lucerne for the production of high quality lucerne hay for the Horse Industry including the renowned Coolmore Thoroughbred Stud at Jerry's Plains in to Hunter Valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
519 | P a g e
I strongly urge you the Government to abandon these proposed amendments and to take a long hard look at the local communities, that Australia was built on. The short term gain from coal mining does not out weigh the benefits of the long term benefit and use of the land, water, environment and our communities for future generations to come, ie money now compared to food for a life time. We are told by the experts that the World will need many, many times more food to support the nations, than it has in the past. Australia and the World needs and will always need this high quality agricultural land and water that NSW and the Hunter Valley has. DO NOT let the short term gain ruin our Country and future forever.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robyn Ann Moore
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 1:12 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Fiona Denyer
Sefton Park
Walgett NSW 2832
Dear Premier
520 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My Husband and I along with our 2 children run a family business on the following:Sefton Park is located 30km East of Walgett. It along with three other properties (within a 15km radius of Sefton Park) make up one block of 6250 hectares. “Boraba” is 50km east of Sefton Park (16 km west of Burren Junction) and is 2174 hectares. These properties comprise 6000 hectares of dryland farming, with the remainder stocked with sheep (1600 breeding ewes) and cattle. We produce high protein wheat,chickpeas,faba beans, barley, canola. We employ fulltime staff and up to 12 part time /contract staff at various times in the year.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Fiona Denyer
521 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 1:14 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
David Denyer
Sefton Park
Walgett NSW 2832
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My Wife and I along with our 2 children run a family business on the following:Sefton Park is located 30km East of Walgett. It along with three other properties (within a 15km radius of Sefton Park) make up one block of 6250 hectares. “Boraba” is 50km east of Sefton Park (16 km west of Burren Junction) and is 2174 hectares. These properties comprise 6000 hectares of dryland farming, with the remainder stocked with sheep (1600 breeding ewes) and cattle. We produce high protein wheat,chickpeas,faba beans, barley, canola. We employ fulltime staff and up to 12 part time /contract staff at various times in the year.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
522 | P a g e development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
David Denyer
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 1:26 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Linda Brooks
1345 Old Dyraaba Rd
Dyraaba NSW 2470
Dear Premier
523 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have a 30 acre property growing organic food by permaculture principals.This food is sold through markets and produce shops in the Northern Rivers.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
After recently being impacted upon by the processes of CSG Mining at the exploration stage, I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.The government is responsible for the progression away from these environment disasters as has been previously seen by mining actives such as Captain's Flat, Inverell, Carrington and the just missed environment disaster of Timbarra.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Linda Brooks
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
524 | P a g e
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 4:46 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kathy Prokhovnik
PO Box 409 Gloucester
NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own a farm producing organic produce outside Gloucester.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Mining, and the threat of large increases to the amount of mining in the Gloucester area, is creating significant stress in our community. We do not want to see Gloucester's natural resources stripped by mining companies then we are left to pick up the pieces in ten or twenty years time when these short-sighted projects are no longer as productive.
525 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kathy Prokhovnik
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 5:11 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Harvey Dolman
23 Myola road Newport
NSW 2106
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a city dweller, with an interest in securing quality pastoral land for long term food production. Coal mining on prime agricultural land has short term economical benefits, disregarding our future as a food provider.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle
526 | P a g e consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Harvey Dolman
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 6:04 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Leslie krey
98 Wollemi peak rd Bulga
NSW 2330
527 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My name is Leslie Krey and I reside in Bulga adjacent to Warkworth and Mt Thorley open cut mines. I belong to Bulga Milbrodale Progress association and we recently won a court case against Rio Tinto in the Land and Enviroment court. The mines and the government are appealing this decision.We can understand Rio Tinto appealing this decision as it is a commercial decision however we are extremely upset that the government is also appealing.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. As a government you should be looking after the interests of Australian communities and not siding with foreign owned mining companies. Surely this proposal is in breach of the EP & EP act.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Leslie krey
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 6:14 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Valerie and Anthony Turnbull
528 | P a g e
21 Springhil Grove Sutton Forest
NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Changes to the SEPP, will alter our Air, LAND AND wATER quality , not only to the Farming communities, but all who live in this State. Where will we live, what will we eat and drink, has Mr Hartcher found another Planet to live on. Remember, mining lasts for 30 years, Farming lasts for a Thousand Years plus. Think of futures Generations of Australians.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Valerie and Anthony Turnbull
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 6:29 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
529 | P a g e
Helen Wilson
Tyrone 2570 Spring Plains Road
Wee Waa NSW 2388
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I run a mixed farming operation in North West NSW. I would like to see our land, water and clean air be preserved for our children and grandchildren. If we take care of our land we can produce healthy food long into the future. Gas is short term food is essential forever. Farmers care for their land and should have priority.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Food, water and fresh air is more important to our future. Farmers are a priority.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
530 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Helen Wilson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 6:55 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jim Wilson
Tyrone 2570 Spring Plains Rd
Wee Waa NSW 2388
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We have been involved in farming in this area for more than 100 years and on this particular property since the 2nd world war. We have 2 sons and grandchildren committed to carrring on this core primary industry producing food well into the future. In my opinion our soil and ground water are a 'significant resource', productive and sustainable into the future under the care of farmers. Mining and gas are short term resources that will not feed the growing population
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle
531 | P a g e consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I urge you to abandon these changes as the most important resource is farming land clean water and fresh air, gas and coal won't feed the world.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Jim Wilson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 7:16 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Howard & Sue Prestney
12 Mars Street,
532 | P a g e
Padstow NSW 2211
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We are close friends of a couple who chose Gloucester for their retirement years and have deep concerns for our friends and all who live in these affected areas and very much share their concerns and views even though we live in suburbia.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. These friends have built an environmentally friendly home which unfortunately is situated in the Forbesdale Estate about 1 klm from the new mine, the view they have at the moment is absolutely lovely but that will change dramatically as will their lifestyle. Their whole outlook on life is different to what they had planned for their retirement years, the inheritance they have put together for their daughters has gone down the drain. In general I feel that the government is not looking forward enough in Australia's interests - what about our agricultural land, our resources for Australia's uses in the future - if it all goes to China where will we be in the coming years. Don't sell off Australia. All thoughts on the part of our Governments are very short sited. Are you concerned what your grandchildren will be bequeathed?
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Howard & Sue Prestney
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 7:24 PM
To: Danica Leys
533 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
jennie sakamoto
55/5 Vernon Street
Nambour QLD 4560
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am an a retired lady who works in a an unpaid role as an animal activist with a very passionate interest in conservation...
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
534 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
jennie sakamoto
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 7:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Andrea Sage
736 Waukivory Rd
Gloucester NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I moved to Gloucester with my husband in 1996 and am distressed at the likely destruction of this beautiful district through mining greed.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects.
535 | P a g e
Mr O'Farrell, I believe your Government's mandate on land usage was vividly expressed when you, Mr Hazzard and others wore your T shirts declaring 'water not coal'. I therefore believe your Government does not have a mandate to skew the SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production & Extractive Industries)2007 to such an extent that the 'significance of the resource" would override the security of our water resources. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Andrea Sage
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 8:40 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ray Inder
"Farley" Ringwood Road
Merriwa NSW 2329
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
536 | P a g e
I run a 700ha mixed farming enterprise in the Hunter Valley and am the third generation to do so on this property. My family's livelihood, including my four children is dependent upon our agricultural endeavours. We take pride in producing high quality prime lambs, beef cattle and grain and that we are able to assist in feeding the population of our great country. While I appreciate the economic benefits mining has brought to Australia, there must be some balance in future planning for the use of our land, and the importance of agriculture must not be overlooked.
Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ray Inder
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 8:53 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Nigel McKee
537 | P a g e
12 Boronia Cres Minnie Water
NSW 2462
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in a coastal village reliant on aquifer fed lakes for our water supply
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Nigel McKee
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 8:55 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Malcolm & Colleen Reid
EVANDALE 11974 Hume Highway
538 | P a g e
SUTTON FOREST NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Our family have a sheep and cattle property in the Southern Highlands. We have a bore to provide water to the cattle stalls and stock troughs. The acquifers are all under our land and if these are damaged by mining operations they will grossly affect many people's livelihoods. As the ICAC has revealed huge corruption in the granting of coal mining licences surely these mining projects should not be going ahead and a inquiry into the approval processes for coal mining should be sought to bring transparency and public consultation into this process.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Malcolm & Colleen Reid
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 9:10 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
539 | P a g e
Cheryl Kreuzen
P.O. Box 233
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on acreage in regional NSW where my husband and I have settled, lived, worked and raised two children. We currently run a family-owned & operated small business. It is with much alarm that we, as ordinary citizens, find ourselves needing to be government watchdogs within the community to protect our way of life and the very fabric of our society. The parties who we elect into power are entrusted with the job of doing the very best they can in all facets of government to run this state and country without destroying large tracts of arable, food producing land, placing needless, burdensome strain and stress on communities to benefit foreign investment for the sake of royalties which in the long run are a mere pittance compared to the untold expense that will be the legacy of these short-term ‘solutions’ to ‘economic gain’. We have been horrified to learn that the already slow and oft inadequate community consultative process is about to be lessened or eliminated at the behest of the Planning Dept which wishes to control the decision making without including the very people affected by their decisions in that process. Therefore we feel strongly urged to make this known.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a
540 | P a g e community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and acknowledge the submissions you receive on this very important topic.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Cheryl Kreuzen
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 9:38 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Rohnda Hawtin
Martins Crossing
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
541 | P a g e
My family run a small mixed farm in Gulgong - we are multiple generations of long term residence with three small farms across our family, and with one that is 2 kilometres from the proposed "camp" site. In the time that this development has been discussed the property closest to the site has depreciated by at least $60000. Gulgong and similar towns, like Mudgee had been developing their reputations as a life style and gourmet food area. This had been creating a community in which one is very privilaged to live and provided a welcome escape for people residing in the larger cities. However with the excess in mining and their interruptions to normal life, food and rental prices have grown exponential to miners wages but not local wages. We are being priced out of our life in our home towns. To then propose importing workers that will infiltrate the local communities and destroy their way of life is completely unAustralian!
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Rohnda Hawtin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 10:09 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Lirhazel Evans
Banool Circuit,
North Ocean Shores NSW 2483
542 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a born and bred local to Northern NSW and I adamantly & vehemently oppose any proposition of mining in this pristine ecosystem. Not only will it negatively impact on our ecotourism and livelihood, it will affect our health both as individuals and as a community and negatively impact market values. It is unsustainable and irreversible.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Lirhazel Evans
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 10:40 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mary Paunovic
Fingal Head
NSW
543 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of 3 living in the beautiful Northern Rivers.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I would like to see a healthy Australia for all people to grow and live in.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mary Paunovic
544 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 10:46 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mrs Robin Besier
7 Forbesdale Close
Forbesdale NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I retired to Gloucester seven years ago. We left Sydney to live the quiet life but everything changed two years later. We were confronted with the possibility of an open cut coal mine within 2kms of our home, only 6kms from the Gloucester township and now it is becoming a possible reality. Should your Government amend the SEPP, the Gloucester community will not have any say in stopping further expansion of inappropriate mining by the proposed Rocky Hill Coal project or the potential damage to our aquifers and contamination of groundwater should the AGL coal seam gas project proceed any further before a detailed complete scientific study is undertaken of the whole of the Gloucester Basin. We will be unable to voice our disapproval, or be allowed to object on any the grounds, thanks to Mr Chris Hartcher’s grand plan.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
545 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
People are rising up and defending their way of life in agricultural regions where inappropriate mining is encroaching on their townships. Where farmers are sensing the uncertainty of whether they have a future on the land. Where retirees, like ourselves do not know where to go – we do not want to live within 2kms of an open cut mine or 400mtrs from a gas field. Do we live in a democracy? I am beginning to wonder what sort of regime we do live under. It is disappointing and it is extremely distressing to think what kind of legacy are we going to leave our children and grandchildren? The huge groundswell in the activist movement is not about raging one-eyed greenies or left-wing loonies, hell bent on destroying our country, they are ordinary people who see beyond short-term financial greed and pitiful inaccurate statements made by arrogant politicians and mining executives. They see problems where your Government will not face head on, they see there will be a pretty bleak future for our children and grandchildren unless the brakes are applied in extracting coal from good agricultural land and where science has not yet proven whether coal seam gas will not harm our aquifers and contaminate our groundwater. Our land, our water is our future. I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Robin Besier
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 11:02 PM
To: Danica Leys
546 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Andrew Strang
"Balarinji" 156 Strang Road TAMBAR SPRINGS
NSW 2381
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a landholder on the unique and productive Liverpool Plains.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
The proposed changes are unfair,lack transparency and are grossly unbalanced and I strongly urge the government not to proceed with these dangerous amendentments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
547 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Andrew Strang
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 11:12 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Levi Kreuzen
159 Cope Rd
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I was very lucky growing up as a Child my parents had a small hobby farm in a great location and community. I am very worried that if this country continues the way it's going that I may never have the chance to bring my own children up like that!
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners,
548 | P a g e environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Wake up and smell the air! Maybe even take the time to go and visit the beautiful and delicate locations that could so easily be destroyed by mining or gas drilling! Why make it easier for them??? that just doesn't make sense... Is it really worth the risk? What is the back up plan when Coal and Gas isn't worth mining and they have already stuffed the land and water supplies for farming and residencies? You can't live off Coal and Gas! You still need water and food! Where do they think it comes from! Instead of making life easier for these wealthy mining companies why don't they make life a little bit easier for the hard working people and families that live and work on the land.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Levi Kreuzen
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 11:22 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
549 | P a g e
Rameshwar Drrew
3/19-21 Poinciana Street
MULLUMBIMBY NSW 2482
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a resident of Mullumbimby.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
550 | P a g e
Rameshwar Drrew
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:11 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
John Dyer
441 Schultz Rd
Billys Creek NSW 2453
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own a 104 Ac farm at Billys Creek. This creek feeds the Nymboida River system and ultimately the Clarence River. This water system supplies drinking and farm use water for the entire coastal towns from Yamba to Coffs, and many inland facilities, to more than 80,000 people. Gold mining in our area would have enormous consequences for all those down river from the mine site. The Maclaey River has been poisoned for 300 Km from arsenic in the gold mining process by similar mining up stream of Kempsey. Once started, these bad practices can NEVER be reversed. Mining companies simply walk away from environmental failures by going into receivership, and the clean up bill is left to the State or local authorities to repair, adding more cost to the tax payer. The mining lease in our area is owned by a Chinese company, Anchor Resources, and if you know the Chinese, they are only interested in money, not the environment. Government revenue from these practices is negligible, when compared to the cost of repairing failures to the environment. These new mining amendments do nothing to protect society from mining companies, nor do they do anything to protect the environment. Your Government's policy is a total embarrassment to society in general and the environment in particular. You have no mandate to do these changes. Smarten up and listen to what and where the world is going as far as pollution is going. John Dyer.
551 | P a g e
I and my fellow residents strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Your support or otherwise to these amendments will determine my Federal voting preferences on Sept 7tth, and future State voting at the next elections.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
John Dyer
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 5:11 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
SUE VADER
510 WILSONS CREEK ROAD WILSONS CREEK
NSW 2482
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
552 | P a g e
I live on a small acreage in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. I am deeply concerned at the potential for polluting our sweet water by industries such as coal seam gas mining and therefore feel we need MORE environmental safeguards rather than less.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
SUE VADER
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 7:42 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Bruce Maxwell
"Stubbo" PO Box 399
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
553 | P a g e
I am a Farmer/ Grazier and long term resident of the Gulgong district
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Although I understand the need to replenish financial reserves drained by the previous Govt; the headlong destruction of peoples community and environment in the pursuit of short term gain distresses me. As a long term member/supporter of the National Party I have to question my commitment there also!
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Bruce Maxwell
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 8:29 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
tracey skene
1/168 vincent street cessnock NSW 2325
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
554 | P a g e
I'm a proud wonnarua woman and have been dealing with heritage and culture issues for twenty years and seen so many changes against our mob in regards to protection of our culture and traditional lores and customs...having the wrong people making these decisions on such a sacrid and significant matter to the Aboriginal people...keep stripping us of our culture and how we can help protect our story line,sites etc etc...it will never work for us until we have more of our mob in these positions that make these amendments...the community consultation workshops around the states have been nothing but lip service and brain picking events..I'm totally against these amendment when do we stop fighting for our rights ..
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. and take in consideration our mobs concerns instead of listening to the bigger bodies and companies ...us smaller minority do have a voice and should be heard..
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
tracey skene
555 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 8:32 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Prudence Woods
Yarren Running Stream
NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the 7th generation in the local Running Stream area with 2 children. Our family runs beef cattle on the property. Many local residents are concerned about the impact coal mining may have on our aquifer system. No water = no agriculture = no food.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when
556 | P a g e assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
Start thinking about the country's future. We need to feed the population. Stop destroying our agricultural land, we cannot eat coal.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Prudence Woods
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 8:38 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Harry and Pamela Chadwick
Yarren Running Stream
NSW 2850
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
557 | P a g e
We run a beef farming operation in Running Stream. The agricultural industry and aquifer system in this area is currently under threat from a mining exploration licence, and the subsequent coal mine.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
We strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Protect our water and agricultural land. Our growing population will need to be fed and we need water to grow food. Let's start considering the health and social impacts that coal mining brings to small country areas.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Harry and Pamela Chadwick
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
558 | P a g e
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 8:57 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robin Wolfgang
Loloma 4479 Golden Highway Denman
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I run a 994ha grazing property in the state of NSW. This property has been in my family for more than 100 years and owned and run by direct decendants since then and it is envisaged this will continue into the future, as I have a son and grandsons.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
559 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I believe that the NSW landowners have a direct interest and involvement in the future of our state and deserve for their opinion to be recognised.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robin Wolfgang
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 9:07 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Sandra Wolfgang
"Loloma" 4479 Golden Highway Denman
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the owner of grazing property near Denman, NSW in the Hunter Valley. I am strongly against further mining. I am an asthmatic and believe the air quality has a detrimental effect on my health. I have 3 children and 8 grandchildren living in the Hunter Valley who also experience asthma
560 | P a g e symptoms. Hospitalisation for this condition has been needed on a number of occasions for my family members.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. For the health of our communities I fully support the halting of mining. I believe the health of our state community members is vital. We must consider the consequences of a short term gain over a long term effect.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Sandra Wolfgang
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 9:10 AM
To: Danica Leys
561 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Maureen Gardner
7667 Illawarra Highway
Sutton Forest NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My husband and I bought 100 acres in the beautiful area of the Southern Highlands for our retirement stage of life. We run Suffolk Sheep and Boer goats and extensive fruit and vegetable gardens. Like so many others we chose this area for its natural beauty, proximity to Sydney and Canberra and for it's peaceful country lifestyle. We are now terrified what Coal Seam Gas and new Coal Mining will mean for this lovely region, especially what it will do to our vital bore and dams.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
562 | P a g e
We appeal to you to leave this area as a green belt for the rapidly expanding Sydney areas, to leave it's valuable water resources in tact and to honour citizens rights to live peacefully on their own land, without the fear of impact from mining and the intrusions and health risks that go with that. Please abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Maureen Gardner
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 9:28 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Bill and Fiona Buchanan
Bungle Gully
Come by Chance NSW 2832
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a 8000ha cropping and cattle enterprise in the Come by chance district. We are at retiring age and our son is virtually running the property and keen to continue on farming. To keep our
563 | P a g e young farmers optimistic about the future we need to care about the future of our landscapes. Soil and water are are the key resources. We don't want them depleted and ruined.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Bill and Fiona Buchanan
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 9:39 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Eric Davis
15 Grevillea Crescent
Greystanes NSW 2145
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
564 | P a g e
I lived in Bylong until I left and trained as a accountant and work in Sydney. I am involved in the accounting policy area and in praticular the longer term accounting for the costs of developments which are not included in the assessments that are made before a rational decision is made on issues such as this.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Eric Davis
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 9:44 AM
To: Danica Leys
565 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kim Revell
Wire Lagoon Spring Plain Road
Narrabri NSW 2390
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I manage with my husband 1700 Ha irrigation farm near Wee Waa. Personally I am very concerned about the expansion of the attractive industries in Australia and have been educating myself about the issues.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
Agriculture employees more people and generates more income than mining in Australia why are we not being supported and recognized. As an industry we are always striving to improve our management though science and not just be sustainable but improve our land and community.
566 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kim Revell
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 9:48 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Bruce Gilbert
6 Forbesdale Close
Gloucester NSW 2422
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I retired to Gloucester in 2009, attracted by it's peaceful and tranquil environment. There was no industrialisation of the Gloucester Valley. I was an ideal place to retire.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the
567 | P a g e economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. You, as individuals and as the current government of NSW, are morally corrupt and contemptible in every sense. What you lack in common sense and decency you make up by lying, to each other and to the people of NSW, to whom you are responsible. Is it time to remind you yet again of the pre-election photo of you and your colleagues in red tee-shirts emblazoned with the vote-catching words 'WATER NOT COAL'. Remember that photo?. You've sold your souls to the devil; you now have your one last chance to redeem yourselves.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Bruce Gilbert
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 10:27 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kathryn Pearson
568 | P a g e
122 Mayne st
Gulgong NSW 2852
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in a rural community and have done so for most of my life; time in the city taught me the value of rural communities in shaping Australia's future as food providers, tourist destinations, and wonderful places to grow families and businesses.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Kathryn Pearson
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 10:33 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Beverley Crossley
569 | P a g e
The Old Church, Ellangowan Road
Tathm NSW 471
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retired grandmother and I am extremely concerned about the effects of the proposed legislation on my family, my community, and my state. I strongly believe that a healthy society ensures that all citizens have a say in the issues that impact on the community in which they live, the society as a whole, and the health of the whole environment which sustains us all. I am dismayed at the undermining effect of the proposed legislation on the voice of the many, in favour of the rich and powerful few. I am deeply concened at the errosion of community rights that I observe from the present government. I stronly object to the proposed legislation for the reasons set out below and trust that my objections will be noted.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Beverley Crossley
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 11:28 AM
To: Danica Leys
570 | P a g e
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Allan & Naida Wills
72 Spencer Road
Killara NSW 2071
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We own a property in Rylstone and produce wool, beef and fat lambs. Our family have been involved with farming from the North Coast to Bowral - producing dairy products and beef. Our children (adults) enjoy being on our property. Fresh water, beautiful views and open spaces all finged native bushlands and mountains. We have relatives in Gloucester who are beef producers. The land is highly fertile and productive.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
571 | P a g e
We strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Please do not turn your back on the welfair of small communities and our food and fibre producers for a short term gain. We consider the importance of clean water and air is vital for our future properity. Mining is taking place at an out of control rate and the enrionmental affects of this rapid grab for energy particularly by overseas owners of the resources is not in the best interest of the people of New South Wales. We trusted you when we voted you into Government. You believed in your promise to impliment safeguards for our environment and primary producers. Please do not betray us. Regards Allan & Naida Wills
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Allan & Naida Wills
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 11:39 AM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Chris Dolman
5/102 Pacific Pde Dee Why
NSW 2099
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
572 | P a g e
To whom it may concern, I a NSW resident concerned about the balance of mining and agriculture in NSW. Prime agricultural land is in a finite supply in Australia. When determining whether mining is appropriate in an area, especially one rich in agriculture, the long term net present value and or loss should be considered and not simply short term royalties and revenue. I am not anti-mining but concerned about the s/term focus on mining with long term considerations of the land and water tables not seemingly considered in all cases. Any legislation must be open to public scrutiny and best interest tests for the wider community over time – we don’t want anymore Ian MacDonald type issues where s/term gain was focused on over the interest of the community.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Chris Dolman
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
573 | P a g e
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 12:04 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Allan Moore
25 Myola Road
Newport Beach NSW 2106
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I was born & raised on a property in the Upper Hunter Valley. One of my brothers still lives and works on this property. It forms the basis of his families livelihood. It is with concern I see the continued loss and destruction of prime agricultural land and aquifer damage through the approval of ever increasing mining approvals. It does appear there are no boundaries to ongoing mining approvals to meet funding shortfalls. What about seeking productivity improvements with better planning? Productive agriculture land is becoming more scarce with further mining approvals. Mined land takes many, many decades to lie fallow before it becomes productive again. If the loss of productive land continues it will be likely Australia will be importing more and more food!
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Mining is necessary but not with the loss and destruction of prime agricultural land and acquifers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Allan Moore
574 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 12:19 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Julianne Malone
Byra,
Garah. NSW 2405
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a 4000ha mixed family farming enterprise in the State's North West.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. I have seen what coal seam gas has done to our family's farms in Qld and don't want any part of these mines on our country, or in our area.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Julianne Malone
575 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 12:23 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
G.MacBean
2 Greenhills Road Sutton Forest
NSW 2577
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a retired farmer living at Sutton Forest in the area where Hartcher is allowing a mob of Koreans to threaten the aquifers which supply water to Sydney. I know of several retired people who have homes in this area who cannot sell them in order to move into nursing homes, because no-one will buy a home in the area with this threat hanging over our heads.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations
576 | P a g e and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
G.MacBean
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 12:30 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Jennifer O'Neill
139 Testorellis Rf
Copeland NSW 2422
Dear Premier
577 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live on a 950 acre property just West of Gloucester with my husband and two children. We came to Gloucester because we want to part of the agricultural industry, the protection and development of which is crucial for Australia's future international trade and national food security. Mining and proposed mining in the Gloucester valley are already having a devastating impact on the potential for the valley to live up to its promise as a food bowl for Sydney and Newcastle, and on the fabric of our community. Our town is a worse place because of the negative coal and gas industries you have approved and continue to consider approving. You have displaced many farming families and destroyed many long-term sustainable Australian-owned businesses and contributed to escalating pollution of our rivers and soil.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Prioritise our community our health and the long-term economic benefit of our sustainable food production businesses.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
578 | P a g e
Jennifer O'Neill
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 12:39 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Anne Kraefft
Springfield, 196 Springfield Rd
Merriwa NSW 2329
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We have a property of 2,300 acres in the Upper Hunter and we are deeply distressed by the proposed amendment to the Mining SEPP. We would like to expand our acreage and increase our investment in the district but the uncertainty we constantly face from the threat of expansion by mining makes decsion making impossible.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining
579 | P a g e development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments and to instead invest time in strategic planning for the state for the 100years and beyond. Please do look at how future generations will reflect on the Goverments prepardness to disrespect their right to a clean and healthy future. The proposed changes are SO WRONG and challenge sensible thinking.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Anne Kraefft
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 12:47 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Robyn and Ian Wing
Elstern
Somerton NSW 2340
580 | P a g e
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We have for 30 plus years run cattle and grown grain on the North West Slopes and Plains. Without the food bowl where would our country be? We are selling off our prime agricultural land to different companies and also countries without so much as a thought to whom or what "we" will be in the future. Our money is not staying in Australia as we have next to no industry of any description; there is not one agricultural industry that is 'firing'. It seems that now if these changes are to be made, that we are going to be overrun with mining which is destroying our future, soil and landscape let alone our air quality. We regularly travel to Sydney and from Werris Creek down we travel through 'mining country' and each 3 weeks you notice the air has more of a gaseous smell to it; there are mountains where there used to be flats and they are planting trees to ‘hide’ the immense holes in the ground. All of this has to have an effect on the weather patterns for the local areas i.e. rain shadow areas created from the ‘new’ mountains, amongst others. How can one make a decision to mine without considering what our next generation will exist on? We rely on bore water for our stock and it is with great concern that I beg you to consider the repercussion of mining and fracking as I have thoughts that the water all comes from the one table of water and once it is disturbed what is our guarantee of future supply? We think that the government is only trying for a quick fix to the economy and not about the next generation of Australians and the next etc. etc.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Robyn and Ian Wing
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 12:57 PM
581 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Geoff Chesworth
781 Rouchel Road Aberdeen
NSW 2336
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Business owner in Muswellbrook,upper Hunter region.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
582 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Geoff Chesworth
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:08 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Craig Benjamin
51 Argyle Ave
Anna Bay NSW 2316
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I conduct tours of the thoroughbred studs in the Upper Hunter and have done for 20 years and to see the mines moving closer and closer to some of the worlds great studs is an insult to those that have put countless hours and money onto the wonderful operations only to see they have no protection from encroaching mine operations.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the
583 | P a g e economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Craig Benjamin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:31 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Alison Hodges
Riversdale 3021 New England Hwy
584 | P a g e
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the mother of 2 children and 3 grandchildren all residing in Scone. Our family run 3 properties where we agist and breed thoroughbed horses and fatten cattle
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Alison Hodges
585 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:32 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Karen Irwin
310 Rosemount Road
Denman NSW 2328
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a single parent of 3 children and run a thoroughbred breeding farm in Denman NSW. The farm is 100 acres and has frontage to the Goulburn River and Wybong Creek. I have been in the thoroughbred breeding industry for 25 years.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state
586 | P a g e and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Karen Irwin
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:34 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Teresa Byrne
12, Redbank Drive
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
587 | P a g e
I am an artist and mother of two based in Scone. As a long time resident of the Upper Hunter, I am concerned about the balance of industries with the resulting effect on the community and environment.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Yours sincerely, Teresa Byrne
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Teresa Byrne
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:36 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Graham Hook
"Manaree"
Blandford NSW 2338
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
588 | P a g e
I run a beef cattle operation of approximately 500 head, and have done so for the past forty five years.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Please adopt a long term view on these matters, and give some consideration to our children, grandchildren and our successors. If this type of legislation was to succeed, in years to come they will look back i n amazement that it was allowed to happen
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Graham Hook
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
589 | P a g e
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:38 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
William Irwin
310 Rosemount Road
Denman NSW 2328
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am 18 years old and have grown up on a thoroughbred breeding farm, with my mother currently owning and managing a farm at Denman NSW. Both my parents are actively involved within the industry and have spent the majority of their lives breeding, rearing and selling thoroughbred horses.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
590 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
William Irwin
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:41 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Teresa Byrne
12 Redbank Drive
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Dear Sir/Madam, I am an artist and mother of two based in Scone. As a long time resident of the Hunter Valley I am concerned about the balance of industries and the resulting effect on the community and environment.
591 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Yours sincerely, Teresa Byrne
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Teresa Byrne
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:44 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
592 | P a g e
Darley Australia Pty Ltd
Level 1, 287-289 New South Head Road, Edgecliff
NSW 2023
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Darley is HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum’s global breeding business which operates in six countries around the world, including Australia’s Hunter Valley, Newmarket in the UK, County Kildare in Ireland, Kentucky USA and Hokkaido, Japan and more recently China. HH Sheikh Mohammed is ruler of Dubai and Vice President of the United Arab Emirates. Darley established its commercial breeding operation in the Hunter Valley in 2001 in recognition of Australia’s growing force in international thoroughbred breeding and racing. In 2003 Darley Australia purchased the 1,700 acre Kelvinside Stud in Aberdeen in the Hunter Valley. The property has since been developed into a world-class facility with capacity to stand 18 stallions, comprehensive mare and yearling facilities and more recently a world class education and breaking operation. In 2008 Darley purchased Australia’s largest integrated breeding and racing operation, Ingham Bloodstock, which included the 6,500 acre Woodlands Stud at Denman. In addition to its Hunter Valley farms Darley operates a Victorian breeding operation from its stud Northwood Park, at Seymour Victoria. Darley also owns and races in excess of 500 horses from its two training bases in Western Sydney and Victorian training base at Flemington racecourse in Melbourne, Victoria. It is estimated that Darley’s ownership of elite thoroughbred racehorses amounts to approximately 10 per cent of all racehorses competing in metropolitan Sydney. Darley employs 350 people in Australia, including 150 in the Hunter Valley across its two stud farms. These include horse handlers, bloodstock experts, gardeners, and others working in corporate functions including administration, finance, human resources, IT, and marketing and sales. During the Southern Hemisphere breeding season the value of bloodstock under Darley’s stewardship is in the order of $500 million, with in excess of $350 million located in the Hunter Valley. Darley's business in the Hunter Valley is under direct threat from the encoachment of open cut coal mining. It is widely recognised that years of poor planning has left coal mining in the Hunter Valley is at saturation point. We support the Hunter Thoroughbred Breeders Association position on this SEPP.
The proposed Proposed Resource Significance SEPP promotes the development of mineral resources above all other activities (including agriculture) and directs development consent authorities to give principal consideration to the significance of mineral resources above all other considerations - be they agricultural land use; water and the environment; the community's health and wellbeing. This:
593 | P a g e
• undermines every commitment for certainty, protection, balance and fairness made by the Coalition Government prior to and since it came to office to implement tougher but fairer mining and csg assessment processes in recognition of the competing land use conflicts in the Hunter; • discriminates against agricultural landholders, the community and the environment in favour of mining interests; • signals a total rejection by the NSW Government to all non-mining sustainable industries in the Hunter and heralds the demise of our billion dollar thoroughbred breeding industry – Australia’s largest producer, supplier and exporter of premium thoroughbreds concentrated in the Hunter Valley, employing thousands of people and one of only three Centres of Thoroughbred Breeding Excellence in the world; • creates investment uncertainty for non-mining investment by agricultural communities in regional NSW and reduces prospects for economic diversity and resilience for the Hunter community; • is completely at odds with the NSW Liberals and Nationals Strategic Regional Land Use Triple bottom line assessment to protect our regions – election policy released in February 2011; • renders completely irrelevant the NSW Government Strategic Regional Land Use Plan for the Upper Hunter (released in September 2012) – which promised balancing agricultural and resources development; protecting strategic land assets (including biophysical strategic agricultural land and critical industry clusters); requiring Agricultural Impact Statements; establishing a Gateway Process (founded on independent, scientific expertise); • negates the additional scrutiny of the proposed Drayton South open cut coal mine announced by Minister Hazzard in May 2013 to address concerns raised by the community and the impacts on Darley’s Woodlands Stud. We urge you to withdraw this SEPP.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Darley Australia Pty Ltd
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:48 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
594 | P a g e
Jackie Crossing
Colly Blue SPRING RIDGE
NSW 2343
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Mixed family farming enterprise Liverpool Plains
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
595 | P a g e
Jackie Crossing
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 1:56 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ben Hodges
1556 Middlebrook Rd
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My family is involved in breeding and selling thoroughbred race horses, and has been for over 30 years.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state
596 | P a g e and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ben Hodges
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:01 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Ben Hodges
1556 Middlebrook Rd
Scone NSW 2337
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
597 | P a g e
I provide representation for my brother Nicholas Hodges who is overseas this week. Our family operates a thoroughbred breeding business in Scone in the Hunter Valley and has done for over 30 years.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
On behalf of Nicholas and our family I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ben Hodges
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:10 PM
598 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Amy Austin
3/18 Kenneth Street Tamarama
NSW 2026
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I have worked in the racing and bloodstock industry for 20 years and the Hunter Valley is where 90% of my bloodstock business is conducted. The mining industry is seriously jeopardising the racing and breeding industry in the Hunter Valley and this is a travesty for all who work and live here. It has been proven to be one of the best places in Australia to breed these elite equine athletes and to destroy all of this is completely senseless.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
599 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments without delay or hesitation for the sake of a quick buck, the Valley will never be seen again.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Amy Austin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:14 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Michael Kirwan
Coolmore Jerry's Plains
NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am the General Manager of Coolmore Australia. We employ in excess of 130 people on this property in the heart of the hunter valley. The contribution the people and employees make to this local community is enormous and to put this in jeopardy is daunting. We have the most spectacular and glorious property in the hunter valley where we rare and raise the future champions of the
600 | P a g e
Australian turf. We do not want to see this change and will do everything in our power to prevent this, so I tell you the government of NSW keep to you word and do not let this happen. A government that keeps its promises is a good government, one that breaks it loses it. Keep reminding yourself about the promises that you made.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Michael Kirwan
Are you a member of NSWFA?
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:17 PM
601 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Cat Miano
PO Box 533
Mullumbimby NSW 2482
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I live in a rural environment because of my connection to nature.
The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Cat Miano
602 | P a g e
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:20 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Debbie Holcombe
540 Myra Vale Road Wildes Meadow
2755 NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a mother of two and a friend of many that live in the Hunter region. I have lived there for over ten years. I have seen the negative community impact mining has had on this region. Enough is enough.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when
603 | P a g e assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Holcombe
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:22 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Darryl and Raema Leigh
'Glenbrook Park' 294 Upper Rouchel Rd, Rouchel. via Aberdeen. NSW 2336
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
604 | P a g e
We have a Breaking-in, Pre-Training and Spelling,thoroughbred horse property in the Upper Hunter Valley. I have never been known as a "politically correct" type of person, therefore, can I ask this honest question for an honest answer! why the government is changing it's commitment to the communities involved in these areas?? I know it is all about GREED which is this worlds greatest downfall. Shouldn't we be putting the environment first? As far as caretakers of the land go the government aren't doing a great job!!
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development.
Please let's not be the Generation that makes the decision to rape our land and leave a moonscape where there was beautiful countryside and clean clear running streams and rivers. Would you like to admit to your grandchildren that you were a part of that decision process?? Think about it, I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Regards Raema and Darryl Leigh Equine Services
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Darryl and Raema Leigh
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
605 | P a g e
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:23 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Wonnarua Nation Aboriginal Corporation
254 John St Singleton
NSW 2330
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Hi My Name is Laurie Perry CEO of the Wonnarua Nation Aboriginal Corporation based in Singleton which has over 300 members and don't agree with the amendments proposed by your Government there seems to be no protection or clear understanding on how this will effect the current Aboriginal culture and heritage act.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
606 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Wonnarua Nation Aboriginal Corporation
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:27 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
TERRY & ROBYN HANIGAN
HOLLYWOOD
COONAMBLE NSW 2829
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
We run a beef & cropping farm of about 7000acres in the North west of NSW near Coonamble. We are very concerned about the new proposed amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy. We are desperately concerned about our water & any damage that may be caused to the
607 | P a g e quality of our water & also the flow of water through our bores. We rely totally on Artesian water for our stock & domestic use. If this was to be affected we may as well walk off & leave what we have worked hard for for the last 60 years. It is also a worry as to what affect mining or CSG mining would have on our community. After travelling around QLD it was very worrying to see all the 'Mining camps" set up all over the place. Not what we want around here.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. This is not what we want for our family & future generations & also our community.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
TERRY & ROBYN HANIGAN
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
608 | P a g e
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:28 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Nardi Beresford
Quirindi NSW 2343
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am based on the productive Liverpool Plains and work in the thoroughbred industry. Mining is a huge concern both where I live and where I work.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
609 | P a g e
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Nardi Beresford
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:33 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NSW
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a 26yr old female concerned about here countries future. I am concerned about what my generation and other future generations may be left to deal with due to Coal Seam Gas Mining. Not only are resources going to be depleted, prime farming land is being destroyed there are major health issues associated with CSG for those unfortunate enough to be living on land that has been taken from them. How can we do this to our country? How stupid are people to not see into the
610 | P a g e future and give recognition to CSG as being unsustainable. It is destructive, limited and ultimately leads to problems for future generations. I feel sad to look at the older generation and see so much greed and stupidity. We have alternates ways of producing energy and these methods are opportunity for Australia to be an example to the world on using green energy.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:45 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
611 | P a g e
mark wheadon
401 ropuchel road aberdeen
NSW 2336
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
a father of 2 working and living on a thoroughbred property in the hunter valley.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
612 | P a g e
mark wheadon
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:51 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Paul Thompson
Baramul Stud Widden Valley
Denman NSW 2328
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I manage Baramul Stud located in the Widden Valley, Baramul is a large thoroughbred stud owned by retailing giant Gerry Harvey. We house approximately 400-500 horses and employ 30 staff that live on the farm. Baramul Stud has a rich history in racing and breeding and have achieved much success on the racetrack over many years.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their
613 | P a g e landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Paul Thompson
Are you a member of NSWFA? Yes
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 2:57 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
NickPosa
520 Timor Road Blandford
NSW 2337
Dear Premier
614 | P a g e
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
My family and I own and operate a 340 acre property at Blandford. We raise Thoroughbred horses on this property situared on the Pages River. Blandford at present is one of the few mine free areas in theHunter Valley, even so we live in the shadow of the proposed Bickham Mine. This is a beautiful and productive place to live and to grow a business. I never cease to be amazed and astounded. By Government either Liberal or Labor and their actions.....do we not matter? Do we have no voice?.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. Prior to the last state election my family and I marched to the Parliment and stood and listened as the liberal party leaders said categorically that our. Rights would be protected and our properties would be protected. Now the same government joins Rio Tinto in court action to overturn an environment court descion against a rural community. On the list of reputable professions this action confirms that politians are not and never have been on that list.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
615 | P a g e
NickPosa
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 3:02 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Kieran Falvey
Monarch Stud 1890 Denman Rd
Muswellbrook NSW 2333
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I own and operate a 100 acre stud farm sandwiched between Mangoola Coal and the proposed Spur Hill mine.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
616 | P a g e
Kieran Falvey
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 3:22 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Tara Blackman
245 b Connor Rd Tregeagle
NSW 2477
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
It is of very great concern to me what is happening to our rights in this country re the mining. Our land is beautiful and precious and should be protected from devastation.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state
617 | P a g e and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Tara Blackman
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 3:26 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Louise Steer
12 Merton St
Stanmore NSW 2048
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
618 | P a g e
I am a founding member and the Public Officer of Stop CSG Sydney Inc. We have stopped CSG mining at Alexandria Landfill (Dial a Dump) in Campbell Road, St Peters NSW by persuading Marrickville Council to use its planning powers under its LEP to prohibit coal seam gas mining on that site. The LEP prohibits extractive and offensive industries and open cut mining in Marrickville. We are now concerned with protecting Sydney's water catchment areas and NSW's prime agricultural land. Food and water are more important for the well being of NSW residents than any kind of mining.
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.They give miners far greater powers to access land than currently, and at the same time disempower landowners from preventing miners from having access to land. The Chief Scientist's interim report on coal seam gas mining discusses "superb best practice" but the fact is that there is no such thing in the mining industry. There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that fracking: causes earthquakes by damaging the rock strata, depletes the artesian water table by using so much water in the fracking process, poisons the artesian water table by using damgerous carcinogenic chemicals in the fracking process that cannot be removed from the fracking water. creates serious health problems in humans and animals as a result of chemical use in fracking allows methane to escape unchecked into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change is totally incompatible with agriculture and grazing and destroys prime agricultural and grazing land
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
619 | P a g e
Yours sincerely
Louise Steer
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 3:37 PM
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Brian Martin
12 Merton St
Stanmore NSW 2048
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a founding member of Stop CSG Sydney, which has been active in the fight against coal seam gas mining in Sydney since November 2010. Having stopped coal seam gas mining in St Peters, Stop CSG Sydney is now working with other groups to protect our water catchment areas including Warragamba Dam and Shoalhaven River. The current restrictions on coal mining and coal seam gas mining in these areas are grossly inadequate to protect the water supply of 4 million people. The current rush to facilitate coal seam gas mining before the international gas price bubble bursts is against the long term interests of the people of NSW who rely on our prime agricultural land and water catchments areas for their survival. Food and water should always take priority over mining.
620 | P a g e
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments. They make it easier for miners to enter private land and carry out activities which are known and scientifically proven to permanently and irrevocably damage the land and artesian water table. Furthermore, the profits the miners makes flow overseas mainly to China and do not result in greater wealth for NSW or more jobs for NSW workers. These are economic falsehoods cultivated by the miners to hide the fact that they are not providing any benefits for the people of NSW, who will have to live with the damage forever. It is the job of government to take care of the health and food and water supplies of its people,not hand over control of the land to a few for profit.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Brian Martin
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 3:38 PM
621 | P a g e
To: Danica Leys
Subject:State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
Anthony J. Langford
20 Baltimore St Belfield
Sydney NSW 2191
Dear Premier
Re: Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Resource Significance) 2013.
I am a father and a concerned member of the public. I also receive many of my fruit and vegetables directly from Aussie Farmers rather than supermarkets. The interests of the environment and the community should come before profits for a few under the banner of 'everyone's best interests.'
These proposed amendments prioritise mining interests over the interests of the environment and the community. The amendments make it clear that the ‘significance of the resource’ – using the economic benefit of the resource as a measure of that significance - is to be the principle consideration when assessing development applications for mining projects., The motivation and objectives behind the amendments are not clear. The arrogant approach that the government has taken with these proposed amendments makes a mockery of the hard working landowners, environmentalists, communities and general public who care deeply about the future of their landscapes and natural resources. The notion of the ‘significance’ and economic benefits of developing a resource being the primary consideration when assessing approval for mining development is frightening., Mining development should be subject to truly balanced considerations and triple bottom line assessments. I care about the long term future of our country and our state and I care about the potential for these developments to have an impact on air and water quality and clean green agricultural farm land. These considerations must be considered appropriately when assessing development., I also care about the social impact that mining development can have on a community. These amendments not only increase my own sense of disempowerment, but also the sense of disempowerment felt in my community.
I strongly urge you to abandon these proposed amendments.
622 | P a g e
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Anthony J. Langford
Are you a member of NSWFA? No
623 | P a g e