Towns in the Bylong valley have faced much community division over the project [5]. A resident from nearby town Mudgee, who was born in Bylong, voiced his opposition to the project at an IPC meeting, stating that the mining company KEPCO had “divided, conquered and gagged” the area [5]. KEPCO spent over 700 million AUD in preparation for the project by buying up land in the Bylong Valley, which one former Bylong resident described as a way of “depopulating” the area and “silencing dissent” [5, 8]. The company’s buy-out programme, which has included acquisitions such as Bylong Public School, a Catholic church building, Bylong general store and multiple private properties and farms, has had profound social impacts on the valley and its networks [8]. The IPC criticised the NSW Department of Planning for allowing the widespread buy-outs to go ahead under open market conditions, thereby reinforcing the NSW Government’s acceptance of the inevitability of local social impacts arising from coal projects [8]. A former Bylong property owner expressed the following: “Why does it have to go to this degree before there’s any commonsense, before families’ lives are turned upside down and communities are destroyed?” [8]. However, residents in favour of the mine pointed to the benefits it would bring to the area, including an increase in population and more business opportunities [5]. 459 people in the nearby towns of Rhylstone and Kandos signed a petition in support of the mine and one local criticised what he described as ‘professional protesters’ who were removed from community concerns but mobilising against the mine [5]. However, the mining project has faced significant local community opposition over many years [7]. Even after the IPC’s rejection of the mine, one farmer expressed that the worries around the KEPCO-owned land continue: "It's the uncertainty of not knowing where you're going that's been the worst of it" [9].

While the IPC acknowledged some social and economic benefits of the mine, the ultimate rejection stated that it was not in the public interest and contrary to the principles of ecologically sustainable development, specifically raising concerns with the mine’s longer-lasting environmental impacts [7]. A key reason in their rejection was based on the mine’s intergenerational inequity, whereby “the economic benefits accrue to the current generation and the environmental, agricultural and heritage costs are borne by future generations" [1]. The mine’s impact on climate change from greenhouse gas emissions from downstream burning of coal following export (so-called Scope 3 emissions) played an important part in this argument, which referred directly to the Gloucester Rocky Hill mine ruling [2, 1]. A spokesperson for the Lock the Gate Alliance argued that around five times the amount of greenhouse gasses would result from the Bylong mine compared to the Rocky Hill mine [4]. Concerns around the impact on prime agricultural land in the Bylong Valley also played a great role in the campaign against the mine, especially given that the project is the first proposed open-cut mine on so-called Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Lands (BSAL), a measure to protect valuable farmland from mining and coal seam gas projects in NSW [4]. NSW Farmers described the area having "some of the best soil in the country … critically important [as a source of] near-to-market fresh produce for Sydney into the future" [4]. Concerns were particularly related to the potential impact on the water aquifer in the valley, which local farmers feared would be drained by the mine and destroy nearby farms given their reliance on bore water [4]. Concerns about long term impacts on groundwater were well founded and “unacceptable”, according to the IPC’s findings [1]. Traffic, dust and noise pollution were further concerns voiced by local residents in opposition to the project [5]. Beyond the agricultural value of the valley, a spokesperson for the Bylong Valley Protection Alliance said that people around the state of NSW recognised the beauty and rich cultural and natural heritage of the area, which the IPC included in its statement of reasons for rejecting the project [2, 1]. The IPC also stated that it was unclear what the exact impacts on Aboriginal heritage in the area would be and that further investigation and consultation were needed [1]. Findings from public hearings revealed that Wiradjuri heritage issues had not been addressed or treated seriously by the Department of Planning and Environment, and the IPC had received a letter from the Ibbai Waggan-Wiradjuri People stating that they had been denied access to their Cultural Sensitive sites, but according to KEPCO’s Environmental Impact Statement were not listed as a Registered Aboriginal Party [1]. 

Local opposition group Bylong Valley Protection Alliance, consisting of farmers and local residents, has been mobilising against the mine for many years. The environmental campaign group Lock the Gate Alliance helped form the Battle for Bylong campaign and together the groups have been very active in the opposition against the Bylong coal project [10]. Lock the Gate helped organise several protests against the project including in Sydney at the IPC headquarters in April 2019 [4]. Protesters presented a letter signed by a number of community groups including the local Bylong Valley Protection Alliance, urging the commission to reject the mining proposal [4]. Lock the Gate urged people to make submissions to the Planning Commission to have their say in the decision and the IPC received hundreds of submissions, most of which objected to the mine [4, 11]. Leading up to the IPC’s final decision in July 2019, protesters including Bylong farmers and Lock the Gate campaigners gathered outside the IPC again. The Australian Greens party has also spoken out against the Bylong coal project, its mining spokesperson stating in 2017 that there was no reason to build a new greenfield coal mine in NSW at a time when fossil fuels should be phased out [12]. More recently, the party has again called on the NSW Government to cancel KEPCO’s license, a Greens MP of NSW stating that "a dead fossil fuel project is effectively sterilising the region" [9].

Newcastle Friday’s Student Strike for Climate Change Action welcomed the IPC’s decision to reject the Bylong coal mine, which was partly based on the project’s ‘intergenerational inequity’, calling it an “inspiring” move that showed that change is possible [13]. A month after the IPC rejected the mine at Bylong, a group of farmers and community members from the Bylong Valley set up a camp in front of the South Korean embassy to urge the majority state-owned KEPCO to sell off the land it had bought and blocked from development [14]. The protest group, who sent a strong symbolic message by setting up a pen with sheep and hay, handed a letter to the embassy and urged KEPCO to draw a line under the project and withdraw from the valley [14]. The Bylong Valley Protection Alliance together with Lock the Gate Alliance also launched a TV ad encouraging the protection and restoration of the Bylong Valley to farm land [16]. Outcome

The IPCs decision to reject the mine was the first in NSW to take the intergenerational impacts of coal mining into account in its landmark ruling [2]. Together with the recent Rocky Hill court decision, the IPC Bylong decision shows a shift in thinking by planning commissions on the socio-environmental impacts of coal mining. The chief executive of Australia’s Climate Council Ms McKenzie voiced the following in response: "It's great to see the law finally catching up with the science" [13]. However, KEPCO responded to the rejection of the project as “deeply disappointing” and have made a successful application to appeal through a judicial review at the NSW Land and Environment Court in February 2020 [14, 2]. The mining company is supported by the lobby group NSW Minerals Council, who made a statement calling the rejection and approval process an “absurd and dangerous economic approach that risks making NSW an international investment laughing stock, losing investment and jobs due to uncertainty on who sets planning policy in NSW [14]. The rejection of KEPCO’s proposal has left questions about what will happen to the 13,000 hectares of farmland land owned by the mining company and its exploration license [2]. At the beginning of 2020, KEPCO’s board marked down the value of the Bylong mining license and property owned in the Bylong valley, but have not given official indications of writing off the project [9]. The IPC have announced that they will not participate in the proceedings of the appeal, neither will the NSW Government of Planning, leaving the Environmental Defenders Office NSW to join the proceedings to defend the case rejecting the Bylong mine [R]. Alongside them, the Bylong Valley Protection Alliance started a fundraising campaign in order to join the legal proceedings in defense of the decision to reject the mine, raising over 25,000 AUD to date (status March 2020) [19]. Both the Environmental Defenders Office and Bylong Protection Alliance were surprised by the IPC’s announcement not to partake. The hearing will take place at the end of February 2020 [17]. 

In October 2019, the current NSW government announced plans to introduce new legislation with the intent of preventing regional planning authorities such as the IPC from blocking mining projects based on emissions from the burning of exported coal from Australia (Scope 3 emissions) [18]. Regarded as a response to the Rocky Hill and Bylong Valley mine rejections, the legislative move has been described as a ‘capitulation to the mining industry’ by environmental groups and will affect planning authorities and their ability to influence decisions on mining projects on the grounds of climate change [18].