I agree with Norman Rich in his recent letter (National Parks Journal, October) regarding the NPA's actions in campaigning against the proposed Parramatta to Chatswood railway bridge over the Lane Cove River.

The bridge would have been the same design as that which carries the extended East Hills line over the Georges River at East Hills. I challenge those who opposed the Lane Cover bridge to sit under or near the Georges River railway bridge and see how little impact the bridge and the trains crossing it have on the surrounding parkland.

NPA's decision to oppose the bridge has meant that the NSW Government will have to fund extra costs associated with the tunnel...NPA may have inadvertently forced a cut-back in the National Parks budget across the rest of the state. The decision to build a tunnel instead of a bridge will make the new railway longer, slower and thus less attractive to commuters and limiting the railway's ability to reduce road traffic.

In addition, the tunnel construction will have a greater impact than on the river itself as more disturbance to the river bed will be required.

Will the NPA Executive oppose the super highway proposed to be built across the Blue Mountains Heritage Area and support instead a new railway using tunnels and fast energy-efficient trains — or support the road lobby?

NPA's decision could persuade the government, ultimately deciding how this World Heritage Area will be managed for future generations. Our society needs the right transport which has the least environmental impact if we are to keep our planet clean, green and an enjoyable place to live.

Paul McCann
Armidale
9 October 2001

DIFFERING VIEWS ON MINING

I am writing in response to an article in your Journal (August) regarding the regulation of mining.

A number of assertions in Anne Harrison's article that need to be corrected are:

• provisions contained within the Mining Act, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act) and the National Parks and Wildlife Act show that mining is continually exempted from standard environmental controls in protected areas;

• for a mining lease any conditions attached to the development consent are voided and the development consent is considered to be granted without conditions and during the life of a grant made under the Mining Act, the holder is totally exempted from the operation of the EP&A Act and hence in NSW, mining is exempted from the standard environmental controls used to contain impacts of development in or adjacent to protected areas;

• the legislative exemption of mining from standard environmental regulation is of greater concern where public comment and scrutiny is also restricted and effectively environmental conditions attached to a grant under the Act occur free of public scrutiny.

Harrison rightly notes that a mining lease cannot be granted unless there is a development consent in force under the EP &A Act but she misses the significance of that point.

'A perusal of any development consent conditions for recent mining projects will establish that the environmental protection issues are extensively dealt with...'

Harrison interprets section 65(3) of the Mining Act as meaning any conditions attached to the development consent are void. Sect. 65(3) defines a 'special purpose condition is (one) concerning any preparations for mining... methods...safety measures... 'It is only these conditions relating to those matters which are sought to be imposed in a development consent, that are void.'

In respect of...public comment on environmental protection conditions, what Harrison misses is ... 'the EIS process and ... Commission of Enquiry gives interested parties every opportunity to make comments...'

Susan Streeter
Deputy Executive Director
NSW Minerals Council
7 September 2001