Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Australian Conservation Foundation v Minister for Planning [2004] VCAT 2029

País/Territorio
Australia
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte inferior
Fecha
Oct 4, 2004
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
Decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Sede de la corte
Melbourne
Juez
Morris
Número de referencia
[2004] VCAT 2029
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Aire y atmósfera, Energía
Resumen

This case was one of the first examples of climate change litigation in Australia. At stake was the expansion of a coal mine with the potential to increase indirectly the greenhouse gas emissions of the nearby Hazelwood Power station by extending the life of its operation to assist in the function of this new mine. It involved a planning scheme amendment under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and the related failure by a planning panel to take into consideration the impact of those indirect emissions.The Australian Conservation Foundation in conjunction with other environmental groups sought orders in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”).

Under sections 6(1) and 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a planning panel has a scope of general matters and objectives when determining the viability of a planning scheme amendment. These take into account environmental issues, sustainability and other public concerns. Section 24 requires that all submissions are considered and section 21(1) lets an individual make a submission about an amendment.

The Minister for Planning directly informed the panel not to consider any issues that relate to greenhouse gas emissions with regard to the Hazelwood Power Station. This was done on the basis that these emissions were being addressed through a separate process. Later that month, various environmental groups made submissions relating to the admissions but these were not considered by the panel.

It was held that the failure to consider the submission (as required by s 24 above) was a breach of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. While the applicants failed to argue that the panel was obliged to consider all submissions (which Morris J dismissed), it was held that the greenhouse gas issues were relevant. The extended life of the power plant meant that there would likely be more greenhouse gases, which would probably have a negative impact on the environment. Relevance was met because “there is a sufficient nexus between the amendment and the effect.” (per Morris J at 45). Because of this, an order to prevent the adoption and approval of the amendment was made until the relevant submission was considered.

 

(Contribution:  Case provided by Friedrich Kuepper from the Queensland University of Technology)

Texto completo
Australian Conservation Foundation v Minister for Planning_AUSTLII.pdf
2029.html