Mod 16 - United Wambo

Submission for application Wambo/United Joint Venture

As of all coal mining activities surrounding our property the main concerns are normally noise, dust,vibration from blasting, visual impacts and property values. Although already having an excellent relationship with both companies involved in this application we do have very high concerns as to the conditions we will have to endure after living here for over 33years and now in our retirement years over the next 20years or more.These concerns come not from the Wambo/United organisation with the meeting at our home some months ago with the Glencore representatives showing that both sides are committed to working in a transparent way to achieve our goals, but from the regulator itself, namely the New South Wales Government.
Unfortunately government has shown from decisions made from Premier to NSW Planning PAC,s involved in mining applications concerning Upper Hunter residents and especially the Bulga community since 2006 to be in our opinion inconsistent, not even fair or reasonable and in some cases to be corrupt. Until our regulator has in place fair and reasonable conditions for all communities and mining organisations and ensure that all mining operations operate to the consent conditions of that mine and not the uneven playing field we believe is the present attitude.With the current situation we are left with either a workable relationship as with the Bulga consent recently given or we will just be collateral damage as in the Mount Thorley Warkworth consent 2016.

D Maizey
E Maizey

There will be over 260,000,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases created due to this mine and the coal that comes from it. This equates to 8000 premature deaths worldwide.
There will be a deterioration is air quality in the upper hunter resulting in more illness for the local community.
Over 454 hectares of forest will be removed with 223 hectares in an endangered areas.
It will impact on 128 Aboriginal heritage sites.
The net benefit to the NSW economy will be $414 million over the entire 23 years of the project ($18 million per year). Which doesn't take into consideration the health impacts on the local community or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions including the premature deaths (as above) and the costs extreme weather events

I object on the following basis:

1. Additional human deaths: There will be over 260,000,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases created due to this mine and the coal that comes from it. This equates to 8000 premature deaths worldwide. The total stated benefit to the NSW economy for the entire project is $414 million over the life of the project. This values each human life lost at $51,750.

2. Harm to human health: There will be a deterioration is air quality in the upper hunter resulting in more illness for the local community.

3. Environmental: Over 454 hectares of forest will be removed with 223 hectares in an endangered areas.

4. Indigenous Heritage: It will impact on 128 Aboriginal heritage sites.

5. Poor economic case: The net benefit to the NSW economy will be $414 million over the entire 23 years of the project, ie. $18 million per year. These numbers fail to factor in the health impacts on the local community, or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions including the premature deaths (as above) and the costs extreme weather events.

The economics of this project need to be independently assessed. Clearly the economic modelling needs to include the costs to the local community, the cost of greenhouse gas emissions, the cost of the additional human deaths, the cost of environmental impact, and the economic and social cost of the impact on indigenous heritage.

It would be surprising if this project was cost neutral when the real costs are factored in. It would be unlikely to be profitable in any economic or social sense.

I oppose this development due to the negative health impacts on local population caused by air water and noise pollution as well as the destruction of valuable farming land

Jerrys Plains was first settled in 1822, which makes it one of the older villages in the state. It features several historic sandstone buildings including the school buildings, St James Church and the Police Station. The blasting which must occur as part of the mining process already impacts on the village and these old buildings are more vulnerable than more modern dwellings, many of which feature cracks. There were fears regarding the impact of blasting on these heritage buildings many years ago, well before the current mining projects in the area came as close to the village as they do now.
Older residents face the problem of being unable to sell their homes when they can no longer live away from the services that they come to need. Most people must sell their homes in order to move to a new one, but without a buyer they will be forced to stay beyond the time that they can cope or leave their homes and find money to rent elsewhere. I believe that local estate agents regard the purchase of homes in our village as a risk!
The suggestion that there will be some additional local employment opportunities in Jerrys Plains begs the question: how many local people are employed at this mine? Judging by the streams of traffic we see moving between the Upper Hunter and the coast, many mine workers are not local, do not contribute to the local economies and are unlikely to care about those on whose homes they are encroaching.
Experience tells us that all the care in the world does not prevent mistakes being made and impacts of dust, vibration and noise being felt. An apology from the mine and/or a fine imposed on that mine do not remove the physical impacts on us and our homes.
This was a rural community. It has arable land and water to irrigate it. When the explorer, John Howe, reached this area he described it as the greenest place he had seen since leaving England. Future generations deserve to benefit from this resource which should still be here long after coal is a memory.

The negative impact on the health of the local people and the community will far outweigh the net financial benefit of this proposal. This isn't even considering the impact on climate change that this proposal will produce. I strongly object.