|
A proposal put to Walgett Shire Council by the Lightning Ridge Miners Association seeking their support in recommending to the Department of Mineral Resources that MPL's 70 and 243, not be rehabilitated, gained the Council's endorsement at its Monday meeting.
"That the area should be retained for 'future tourism and historical purposes' ," was the Association's reason for seeking the exemption.
In a report to Council made by Matthew Goodwin, Manager Development Services, he stated that "Most of the Permissive Occupancy 1985/19 is covered by historic and active opal mining fields that are known as the 'preserved fields'. The concept of the preserved fields was developed by a working group coordinated by the Walgett Shire Council a number of years ago. The working group sought public and government stakeholders comments on what standards of rehabilitation should be applied to opal fields in the Lightning Ridge area. On behalf of the community, Walgett Shire Council recommended to the Department Mineral Resources that some areas be designated as 'preserved fields' and that their moonscape appearance be maintained for heritage and social reasons."
MPL 70, granted in 1970, and MPL 243 in 1986, are not located within the area defined as the "preserved fields" but on nearby black soil flood plains which are regarded opal free.
"Nevertheless", reported Mr Goodwin, "it can be said that given their age and function, they are a significant part of the cultural, social and land use history of the community."
Security deposits are held by the Department of Mineral Resources to ensure that the sites are rehabilitated at the cessation of operations.
The amount imposed varies, dependent upon area and other factors.
Many Mining Purpose Leaseholders have had their Security Deposits raised considerably making the option of retaining such leases prohibitive.
In some cases the leases have been surrendered whilst others have pursued other options.
If the recommendation made by Walgett Shire Council to the Department of Mineral Resources "that some areas be designated as 'preserved fields' so that their moonscape appearance be maintained for heritage and social reasons (most of Permissive Occupancy Area no 1985/19 is described as Preserved Fields), then the need for increased bonds is not warranted as rehabilitation would not be required.?
|
