The NSW Department of Planning has been accused of operating under a cloak of secrecy with senior bureaucrats working closely with a mining company to overturn the rejection of a coal mine expansion near Camberwell in the Upper Hunter Valley.

Two senior Planning department officials met counterparts from Yancoal Australia on February 9, 2012, weeks after the Planning Assessment Commission had rejected plans for its Ashton South East Open Cut expansion near the town of Camberwell, according to a document obtained by resident Deidre Olofsson under freedom of information laws.

The business contact form reveals little detail of the topics discussed with Chinese-owned Yancoal, other than it was "considering" an appeal.

"How do you keep [Planning] accountable for their actions when they are assessing major developments and they can't keep records?" asked Ms Olofsson, who worked with the Environmental Defenders Office to uncover how the government worked to secure the mine's approval.

"There's no secrecy guideline," she said. "Everyone can work in secret and make deals behind our backs."

A spokesman for Planning, though, said that while the department was aware of Yancoal's legal concerns, it did not work with company to reverse the mine's rejection.

Even so, the scant details may prompt action by the State Records Authority, which is seeking more information about the disclosure of information.

An EDO letter containing the disclosed document and other material "raises potential issues related to the possible non-documentation of specific business meetings involving [Planning staff] and representatives of mining interests", said Geoff Hinchcliffe, director of State Records, in a missive obtained by Fairfax Media.

"NSW State Records has requested additional information from a party in relation to allegations of a breach of the State Records Act 1998," a spokeswoman for the authority said when asked about the Yancoal meeting.

Twenty days after the meeting with Planning, Yancoal successfully appealed against the PAC rejection. The EDO said the practice of the Planning officials meeting with proponents to discuss legal strategies where the PAC is also represented by Planning's lawyers in itself raises doubts about the commission's independence in such circumstances.

"On the face of it, such practice would give rise to a conflict of interest," Sue Higginson, EDO NSW's principal solicitor, said.

Reverse course

One basis for the appeal was that the commission had not considered a new report on the mine's water impact – submitted by Planning hours after the PAC refusal.

The Office of Water initially recommended against the expansion before reversing its stance after the Director-General of Planning paid for a report by its own expert.

NSW Health, though, maintained its advice against the project – which aims to produce at least 16.5 million tonnes of coking coal over seven years – because of noise and air pollution concerns.

The commission subsequently re-examined the proposal and approved it in October 2012. Ms Olofsson, as a client of the EDO, has been trying ever since to get the government to reveal more about its workings with Yancoal.

"What the FOI documents do not disclose is the substance of what was discussed at the meeting between Yancoal and the Department," Ms Higginson, said. "Because there are no minutes, the public is unable to find out what advice, if any, the Department gave to Yancoal's legal advisers on their potential legal strategies to overcome a PAC refusal."

Planning also refused to release the meeting document, claiming it was a "legally privileged document", forcing Ms Olofsson to appeal to the Information Privacy Commissioner to secure its release – a process that took about two years.

Planning responds

A spokesman for Planning said it was "appropriate" for the department's lawyers to represent the PAC as the commission was "the delegate of the minister in this case".

He also defended the department's records of the February 2012 meeting: "The business contact form clearly indicates the topics and issues discussed and was provided to the EDO in response to its GIPAA request. The form records all matters discussed at the meeting."

The spokesman said Planning had made its determination on the GIPA request by 15 November 2012, so questions concerning the time taken by the Information Privacy Commissioner to review the decision "should be addressed to that organisation".

"Ashton had several meetings with the Department of Planning and with the PAC and produced additional information and reports to demonstrate predictions on potential groundwater impacts and to demonstrate avoidance and mitigation mechanisms," a spokesman for Yancoal said.

"Ultimately, the PAC, and NSW Office of Water, were satisfied with this information and approved the project," the spokesman said.

Progress on the mine itself remains stalled, with Yancoal required to own all land in the lease area before it can begin operations. Sixth-generation farmer Wendy Bowman is so far refusing to sell her 77-hectare property, which sits atop the proposed mine site.