The mine sets out its plan,regular people and government departments comment on the proposal and Department of Planning determine if the mine should or should not go ahead.

When mines are approved, and they usually are, they come will a raft of conditions of consent.

There is a general consensus that these conditions will be adhered to and in most cases they are. But not in all cases.

Wambo Homestead is a classic example. It was a surprise back in 2004 when the state government approved the mine but sterilised 300million tonnes of coal in the process by telling the mine they had to retain the homestead on site.

Suggestions to relocated it, brick by brick, were rejected. Apparently it wasn’t feasible or possible and the desire to do that back in 2004 is just as strong as it is today. That old home is sitting on a very valuable coal resource and any coal company would find it frustrating not to get their hands on that coal. Three hundred million tonnes of coal translates to a whole lot of money.

The condition of consent to approve the mine but retain Wambo Homestead was one of those little wins for those who value the Upper Hunter Valley’s built history.

Many felt disheartened by the process when the mine clearly did not comply with its conditions of consent, a move highlighted when the company moved to have the 180-year-old home deregistered off the Heritage List in September.

It was a pretty straight forward question. What is the mine’s penalty for failing to meet such a major condition of consent? Answer - they have to comply with their conditions of consent. There is no easy out in the case of Wambo Homestead.

The decision to appoint three coal mine compliance officers in the Hunter Valley is validated by this decision.

All look forward to living side by side with this important industry in confidence it will be world’s best practice and a heightened respect for consent conditions that will see a new approach to coal mining in the future.