In September 2019, a proposed South Korean-owned coal mine in the Bylong Valley, NSW was rejected by the NSW Independent Planning Commission in part due to its long-term environmental, agricultural and heritage impact on future generations . KEPCO started working on the project in the Bylong Valley area in 2010 when it acquired its coal mining exploration license for more than 400 million AUD . The public consultation period for the Environmental Impact Statement and Development Application took place in 2017, and a review was conducted by the NSW Independent Planning Commission (IPC), previously known as the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) . Following this, KEPCO provided a Revised Mine Plan and the Bylong coal project was marked for approval by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment in October 2018, referring it to the IPC for the final decision . As part of its decision-making process, the IPC heard from more than 60 speakers, both supporters and opponents of the mine . In February 2019, the rejection of another NSW coal mine, Rocky Hill, partly on the grounds of climate change, became a benchmark in the Bylong mine debate . The NSW Environmental Defenders Office, who represented the local opposition group in the Rocky Hill ruling, pointed out the similarities between the two projects; as another greenfield coal project located in a scenic valley in NSW, the assessment of mining projects including Bylong “should now logically follow the approach outlined by Chief Judge Preston (judge in the Rocky Hill case)”, according to the Office . In September 2019, the IPC rejected KEPCO’s Bylong mining proposal and released a statement of reasons for the decision, citing concerns including the mine’s “long-lasting environmental, agricultural and heritage impacts” [1, 7]. A few months later in December 2019, KEPCO appealed by seeking a judicial review of the IPC’s rejection of the Bylong mine at the NSW Land and Environment Court . Lock the Gate Alliance alongside Bylong farmers and supporters voiced disappointment with the decision, stating that opposition to the project will continue if the outcome of the judicial review is ruled in favour of KEPCO .