Myers v South Gippsland SC (No 2). País/Territorio Australia Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha Nov 23, 2009 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Sede de la corte Victoria Juez Bilston-McGillenPotts. Número de referencia [2009] VCAT 2414 Idioma Inglés Materia Tierra y suelos, Medio ambiente gen., Especies silvestres y ecosistemas Palabra clave Manejo de tierras Ordenación de áreas costeras Pequeños agricultores/campesinos Agricultura por contrato Explotación agrícola Cambio climático Agricultura familiar Producción ecológica/producción orgánica Resumen This decision in this case involved several applications for planning permits under the local Planning Scheme for the construction of sea-side apartments. This case involved an application to subdivide an existing lot into two lots. The land is located in a Township Zone, which is an appropriate zone for residential development. An Environmental Significant Overlay Schedule 3 applies to the site. Gale Street separates the site from the coast. The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring that a coastal hazard vulnerability assessment be undertaken prior to a decision being made. This decision follows from the submission of that assessment. It is of particular interest as it deals with balancing the vulnerability of the land to sea level rise with expectations about an individual development that would otherwise be consistent with the applicable zoning and other planning controls. The current policy platform requires a precautionary approach when considering the impact of climate change. We have had regard to expert evidence which indicates that by 2100 without mitigation measures, there will be no dune, no foreshore access, no road and the subject site will be inundated by sea water and otherwise lost to use for the purpose of a residential lot. In the absence of any strategy or work being undertaken in the Waratah Bay area on how the issue of climate change, rising sea level and increase in storm surges is to be addressed, including what mitigation works may be necessary and undertaken, the Court adopted the precautionary approach of the General Practice Note (December 2008). It ruled: "We cannot support a subdivision in the knowledge that without mitigation works, there will be no dune, no road, no access to the site and the site is likely to be inundated with sea water. To grant a permit in such circumstances would result in a poor planning outcome that will unnecessarily burden future generations". Comments made by VCAT in the case suggested that a regional, if not State wide, approach to assessing coastal risks would be preferable than addressing the issue of coastal vulnerability on a lot by lot or development by development basis. In the view of the Tribunal such an approach "should address issues and potential remedial actions, be they engineering or planning based, and seek to produce a coordinated response". Texto completo COU-156699.pdf