On Wednesday Marmion announced he would uphold EPA’s decision to reject the mine, which was to be built northeast of Margaret River.

The mine proposed by LD Operations was expected to produce 1.2 million tonnes per annum of coal over a 20-year mine life.

Association of Mining & Exploration Companies CEO Simon Bennison said he had concerns about the grounds on which Marmion disapproved the project.

“AMEC has expressed serious concern over the decision by the Minister for the Environment concerning Vasse Coal, on the grounds that the EPA has not provided the proponent the right to procedural fairness nor provided a clear and transparent process in assessing projects,” Bennison said.

“The project in Margaret River is one of several that have suffered at the hands of inadequate processes that are being employed by the EPA.”

Bennison said the EPA system was no longer sufficient.

“There is evidence that the approvals system in Western Australia requires further reform, despite the extensive number of reviews that have been conducted,” he said.

“AMEC will be addressing the EPA shortcomings and many other aspects of approvals within the WA regulatory system in an industry review it proposes over the next three months.”

In March this year the EPA effectively said no to the Vasse coal mine proposal, claiming the project was unacceptable because it posed serious risks to important environmental values in Margaret River.

Five appeals were received to the EPA’s decision, including one from the proponent.

After considering the appeals and a report from the appeals committee, Marmion decided the conclusions of the EPA were justified, noting the uncertainty of risks to surface and groundwater in the Margaret River region.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia also voiced concerns over the decision and warned against a blanket ban on future resource developments in the area.

In May, CME was one of the five parties to appeal against the EPA’s rejection of the mine.

CME director Nicole Roocke said Marmion’s decision to reject the mine was based on a fundamentally flawed EPA report.

“CME appealed on the grounds the report lacked process and procedural fairness and departed from the administrative procedures used in the assessment process, which were established to provide certainty to industry, government and the public,” she said.

“CME is of the view that the EPA report on which the minister has based his decision today has taken a number of irrelevant considerations into account.”

“This includes giving weight to unsubstantiated statements of public opposition, making assertions as to the economic viability of the project and attempting to influence global energy policy issues.”

Roocke stressed the need for transparency in the decision making processes of future mine developments, which included basing a decision on sound scientific data.