This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

The New South Wales Independent Planning Commission has rejected the development of a coalmine near Mudgee because of significant concerns about environmental impacts, including on climate change, and the costs to future generations.

On Wednesday the commission said it had refused development approval for Kepco’s proposal for an open-cut and underground coalmine in the Bylong valley that would extract up to 120m tonnes of coal over 25 years for export.

In a statement of reasons that referred to February’s historic ruling on the Rocky Hill coalmine, the commission said the developer had not done enough to minimise greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.

It said the long-term environmental effects on groundwater, agriculture and heritage were also unacceptable.

Korean company planning Bylong Valley mine dismisses climate threat Read more

In a step welcomed by environment groups, the commission said the distribution of costs and benefits of the mine was “temporally inequitable” because younger generations would carry the environmental, agricultural and heritage costs while the economic benefits would flow to current generations.

For this reason, the commission said the mine was “not in the public interest”.

“Kepco is disappointed in the decision and we are reviewing the statement of reasons for the decision,” a spokesperson said.

George Woods, from the Lock the Gate Alliance, said: “In a week when school children are preparing to strike from school for their future, we warmly welcome the Independent Planning Commission’s recognition that this coalmine would be contrary to the principle of intergenerational equity.

“It was the wrong place for a coalmine, and this is the wrong time for New South Wales to be opening up new areas for coal exploitation as the world shifts away from coal in a bid to halt global warming.”

The Bylong Valley becomes the second case where greenhouse gas emissions have been cited as a factor in the rejection of a proposal for a fossil fuel project.

In February the land and environment court in NSW ruled that the Rocky Hill coalmine near Gloucester should not go ahead in part because of the impact it would have on global climate change.

David Morris is the chief executive of the Environmental Defenders Office of NSW, which represented Groundswell Gloucester in that case.

It also represented the Bylong Valley Protection Alliance in public hearings of the Independent Planning Commission last year and made subsequent representations to the commission after the Rocky Hill ruling.

Morris said the commission’s decision to reject the Bylong Valley mine was “enormous”.

“It looks like they endorse the approach taken by chief justice Preston in Rocky Hill,” he said.

“They agree with Preston that the local contribution of projects in NSW have an impact on global climate change.”

He said the commission also appeared to have rejected the argument made by coal proponents that if a project did not go ahead it would just be replaced by a dirtier project elsewhere.

Perhaps we need to explain climate change to politicians as we would to very small children | Emma White Read more

In a statement, the commission said while its assessment found the mine’s predicted air quality, biodiversity, noise, subsidence and visual impacts were acceptable or could be mitigated, “it raised significant concern about other longer-lasting environmental impacts”.

“The commission acknowledged the anticipated economic and social benefits to NSW during the life of the mine – including the creation of hundreds of jobs and the payment of royalties totalling up to $290m,” it said.

“However, it found the environmental impacts, particularly on groundwater and productive agricultural land, would last long after the mine is decommissioned.

“The project is not in the public interest because it is contrary to the principles of [ecologically sustainable development] – namely intergenerational equity – because the predicted economic benefits would accrue to the present generation but the long-term environmental, heritage and agricultural costs will be borne by the future generations.”