Gales Holdings Pty Limited v. Tweed Shire Council Country/Territory Australia Type of court Others Date Feb 27, 2006 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Judge Talbot Reference number 10263 of 2005 Language English Subject Wild species & ecosystems, Land & soil Keyword Protected animal species EIA Drainage/land reclamation Precautionary principle Abstract The applicant proposed to clear and fill land for the purposes of constructing a supermarket based shopping centre and relocate an existing drain. On 24 March 2005 he appealed against the deemed refusal of the development application. The council had raised a preliminary point whether the development application should be accompanied by a species impact statement on the basis that the development was likely to have a significant impact on the Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail Thersites mitchellae (“MRS”). On 21 October 2005 the development application was amended to include environmental restoration works. These included planting additional snail habitat, regeneration and weed control, construction management and monitoring. There was an old farm drain running across the site. It was necessary to relocate the drain further to the south in order to accommodate the supermarket. According the applicant, the relocation of the drain was unlikely to alter groundwater or surface water levels and would not disturb the area where the bulk of MRS had been detected. There was a disagreement between the expert witnesses in respect of the extent and location of the most important habitat for the MRS and the relationship of that habitat to the proposed drainage works. The applicant submitted that the majority of the land was marginal MRS habitat and in its current state was unable to support a viable local population in the long term. Therefore its proposal, including remedial measures, would improve the MRS habitat on the site whereas “to do nothing” would more than likely lead to the extinction of the population on the site. The applicant referred to the precautionary principle to support its position that the “do nothing” approach posed a threat of serious and irreversible harm and therefore action had to be taken to protect and improve the core habitat of the species. The court emphasized that there was a marked controversy between the witnesses. There was some uncertainty about the impact of the proposal. The court was not convinced that the applicant’s scheme for improving the habitat of the species and hence the chance of the survival of the MRS would be successful. The applicant’s argument that extinction was likely to occur even if nothing was done only reinforced the court’s concern that the carrying out of development was likely to have a significant effect by accelerating that process. A species impact statement would greatly assist the decision making process in that respect. It followed that a species impact statement was required before the development application could be determined. Full text 85.html References Cites BT Goldsmith Planning Services Pty Limited v. Blacktown City Council Jurisprudence | Others | Australia | Jul 1, 2005 Keyword: EIA, Land-use planning Source: UNEP, InforMEA Cited by Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council Jurisprudence | National - higher court | Australia | Mar 24, 2006 Keyword: Electro-magnetic pollution, Precautionary principle, Public health, Sustainable development Source: UNEP, InforMEA