Court documents Persons listed may not be admitted in all States and Territories.After the (coal) dust settles – Rocky Hill case and social impactsWhile it received significant media attention because of its statements on climate change, the recent decision on the Rocky Hill Mine Project is more widely relevant for what it says about assessing social impacts in a broad range of projects, particularly major projects in New South Wales. Summary: On December 19, 2017, Gloucester Resources Limited sued the Minister of Planning, appealing the denial of the company’s application to construct an open cut coal mine in New South Wales, the Rocky Hill Coal Project, which proposed to produce 21 million tonnes of coal over a period of 16 years. "Gloucester Resources Limited will assess the implications of today’s decision and consider itsThe Land and Environment Court has reserved its judgment in the Rocky Hill coal mine appeal...The two-week landmark hearing, the first its kind since the Paris Agreement, heard expert testimony about climate change, the carbon budget and the impacts of burning fossil fuels...Gloucester Resources, the company behind the project, and Yancoal Australia, the company behind an associated modification to the Stratford Coal extension project, are challenging the development application refusal by the Department of Planning and Environment’s independent Planning Assessment Commission late last year.Gloucester Resources argued that climate change was “really a complaint about global geopolitical relations” and merits appeal in the Land and Environment Court over the mine’s refusal was “a most singularly inappropriate vehicle” for doing so...Disclaimer: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and its collaborative partners take no position on the diverse views presented in linked material by the various commentators, organizations & companies. As touched on in this newsletter, one key unresolved issue is how the approach taken by the Court would apply to other projects with direct and indirect GHG emissions, in particular future fossil fuel developments.However, it would be a mistake to dismiss it solely as a "climate change case" and ignore its consideration of broader environmental and socio-economic impacts, especially as the project was also refused on these grounds. Judge rejects Rocky Hill mine near Gloucester, NSW, because of its impact on the town and ‘dire consequences’ of increasing emissions Michael McGowan and … The Rocky Hill Mine Project case involved a proposed new open cut coal mine which was expected to produce 21 million tonnes of coal over 16 years. The Chief Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court, Brian Preston, delivered a landmark judgment refusing to approve a new coal mine because of its impacts on climate change. On Friday, Chief Judge Brian Preston of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court handed down a landmark judgement confirming a decision to refuse a new open-cut coal mine near Gloucester in the Hunter Valley. In the Chief Judge’s words, the mine proposal was in the wrong place at the wrong time...The ramifications are likely to ripple out across Australia and possibly the world. So the Court had to consider the potential social impacts from the proposed mine. The “Rocky Hill Coal Project” would produce 21 million tons of coal over up to 21 years.On 14 December 2017, the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission (Commission) rejected the proposal on the basis that the proposed open-cut mine will harm the quality of life of the residents and was not in the public interest. Gloucester Resources lawsuit (re mine’s impact on climate..., Matthew Kelly, the Herald (Australia), 6 Sep 2018