$1b CQ mine still facing legal hurdle despite approval
A cattle breeding property is concerned about the impact of the mine on water supply.
Business
Don't miss out on the headlines from Business. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A $1 billion Central Queensland coal mine promising 1000 jobs is still facing a legal challenge, despite having received the necessary mining leases.
Breeding property Sunland Cattle Co has confirmed it is still pushing ahead with its judicial review of Pembroke Resources' Olive Downs mine near Moranbah.
The matter has been heard in the Supreme Court, with a judgment delivery date not yet finalised.
Sunland Cattle Co is concerned about the impact of the mine on water supply for nearby property owners.
It is not pushing for the mine to be stopped, but wants assurances the water supply will not be impacted.
Even though the project was granted the last of the major approvals required to go ahead, it is understood the State Government will still need to respect the Supreme Court's decision.
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk was accused of hypocrisy during the October state election for approving Olive Downs while it was facing a legal challenge, then refusing to green light an expansion of the New Acland mine because of court action.
A spokesman for Pembroke Resources said mining leases covering the first stage of production, for a period of up to 30 years, had been issued.
"We are focused on commencing construction with a view to being in production as soon as possible," he said.
More stories:
New mine: CQ coal project promises 2350 jobs
WATCH: Work starts on Adani's open cut mine
Explained: Status of 7 major Bowen Basin mines
Burdekin MP Dale Last said it was important to ensure that the rights of all landholders were taken into account and properly considered.
Mr Last has thrown his support behind Olive Downs, which has committed to 100 per cent local employment.
"The commitment given by Pembroke Resources is great news for the Bowen Basin and for surrounding areas," he said.
Correction: A previous version of this story which said the judicial review had been heard in the Land Court was incorrect.
The judicial review was heard in the Supreme Court, and the article has since been corrected to reflect this.
The Daily Mercury apologises for any confusion caused.
Subscriber benefits:
How to activate your free Courier-Mail subscription
Your dose of Harry Bruce cartoons