The Land Court in the northern state of Queensland has ruled that the conservative Liberal National state government should either not approve a proposed GVK Hancock Alpha Coal Project or only allow it to proceed if a number of conditions are imposed.
Environmentalists and farmers launched a legal challenge last year against the planned multi-billion-dollar venture in the untapped Galilee Basin of Queensland.
They were concerned about its possible effect on groundwater, climate change and biodiversity.
The Land Court released its non-binding recommendations for the Queensland state government.
In an unusual decision, member Paul Smith said the proposed coal development should be rejected, but if it were to be approved, it should be subject to a number of conditions.
Those conditions concern water monitoring, licences and compensation for any unforseen problems.
It is now up to the state government to decide which, if any, of the recommendations in the Land Court decision it will impose on the Alpha Coal project.
The project is a joint venture between Indian conglomerate GVK and Hancock Prospecting, which is owned by Western Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart.
Spokesman for environmental lobby group Coast and Country, Derec Davies, said the decision is a major win for the environment, and for the pastoralists affected by the project.
“The judge has clearly stated that the evidence provided to the court in relation to water is unsatisfactory and not in the public interest for this mine to be approved,” he said.
“This is an excellent day for Queensland and this is an excellent day for Queensland’s famers.
“The judge has clearly stated his concerns for water impacts off the site of the mine. This is a hurdle that’s going to be very high for the company to meet.”
GVK Hancock spokesman Josh Euler said as far as the company was concerned, the project had been approved, with conditions.
“Today we welcome the recommendation from the Land Court to grant the environmental authority and mining lease for our Alpha coal mine, in line with a couple of conditions,” he said.
“Obviously we need to work through these conditions.
“We’ll be continuing to work with the environmental authorities going forward to sort through all those recommendations mean.
“We are well aware of the fact that our project represents one of the most significant pieces of regional and economic development we’ve seen for many decades.”
Part owner of Eureka Station, Peter Anderson, was one of the parties to the Land Court proceedings.
He said he and his neighbours were thrilled with the court’s decision to impose water monitoring and licences, and make-good compensation arrangements.
“A make-good agreement on the impact to underground water; that’s what we were after,” he said.
The pastoralists’ major concern was with the project’s potential impacts on the quality of groundwater.
