Minetek Resources (PTY) Ltd has lodged a formal appeal against the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy’s (DMRE) decision to refuse its integrated environmental authorisation for the proposed Newcastle Coal Project, describing the ruling as procedurally unfair, unlawful, unreasonable and irrational.
The appeal follows heightened scrutiny of the project from environmental, heritage and agricultural stakeholders in the Newcastle region.
As reported by Newcastillian News on 14 January 2026, the application was refused after the DMRE raised concerns regarding environmental, agricultural and cultural heritage impacts identified during the Environmental Authorisation (EA) process conducted under the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA).
As stated in the repot, the proposed development, located approximately five kilometres outside Newcastle, would have affected surrounding farmsteads, conservation areas, local businesses — including Grey Goose Game Lodge and Thorn Hill Country Estate — as well as residential areas such as Aviary Hill, Hutten Heights, Lennoxton, Fernwood and parts of Newcastle’s CBD.
Click here to read more about this.
According to Minetek Resources’ documentation, the project design involved sequential open-pit mining across multiple sites with concurrent backfilling and the possibility of future underground operations.
On-site processing would have been limited to crushing, screening and sorting, with no coal washing. Supporting infrastructure would have included internal roads, offices, workshops, water management systems, stormwater control structures, stockpiles and sedimentation dams, all aimed at limiting environmental disturbance.
Despite these measures, the DMRE’s Regional Manager for KwaZulu-Natal concluded:
“According to the discretion of the decision-maker, the potential dust, noise, and visual impacts on sensitive receptors are negative, and the mining will also result in a negative impact on existing land users.”
Minetek argues that this conclusion disregarded key environmental documentation, including supplementary reports specifically requested by the Department.
Citing the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), the appeal states that such decisions must be lawful, reasonable, procedurally fair, and supported by written reasons based on the evidence presented.
However, the site itself contains notable environmental sensitivities. As previously reported by Newcastillian News, the Department’s assessment identified three habitat units of high to very high Site Ecological Importance (SEI), significant freshwater ecosystems, 45 cultural heritage sites and portions of high-potential Class II agricultural soils near Hutten Heights.
In response, Minetek maintains that all significant impacts were identified and mitigation measures clearly outlined in both the Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPR) and the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA). The company further argues that the Department failed to adequately weigh the documented socio-economic benefits against the potential environmental impacts.
“The appellant duly identified all significant impacts and outlined mitigation for each. We submit that the Regional Manager did not properly consider the socio-economic impact assessment, which evaluates job creation, income generation and local economic stimulation against environmental and agricultural impacts. The SEIA highlights a net positive contribution during operations.”
Yet, when looking at the land, property proximity also formed part of the Department’s reasoning.
Minetek states that Grey Goose Game Lodge lies more than 1.3 kilometres from the nearest mining activity, while ANEW Resort Vulintaba Newcastle is over six kilometres away and shielded by local topography. The company further notes that certain neighbouring properties referenced in the refusal are either no longer operational or have not lodged formal objections.
The appeal further contends that the refusal placed disproportionate emphasis on potential negative impacts while overlooking peer-reviewed studies and mitigation strategies addressing dust, noise, visual impact and water management. The company also highlights that the project site does not fall within a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA).
Cabanga Environmental has submitted the appeal for review, citing multiple grounds for reconsideration. Stakeholders have been invited to submit written responses to a[email protected] within 20 days of 22 January 2026.
With the above in mind, what are your thoughts? Let us know below.
Do not forget to read, Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers: Symptoms, Causes and Early Detection, if you missed it.
One Response
If company follow all safety precautions that will be bargain in Newcastle and surrounding because many people are unemployed