Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council

Resumen

This case dealt with the application of the precautionary principle in the case of emission of radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. A telecommunications carrier, Telstra, wished to address the inadequate mobile telephone coverage in a community called Cheltenham by building a mobile telephone base station in the community. This proposal, however, caused a section of the community of Cheltenham and Hornsby Shire Council much concern. They were concerned that the proposed facility would emit electromagnetic energy that would harm the health and safety of the residents of Cheltenham. The Council therefore refused the development application for the proposal. Telstra appealed to this Court seeking consent for the proposal. The court noted that it had to address the following questions: What is the precautionary principle and how is it to be applied when thinking about public health and safety and the environment? How can it be invoked to respond to public fear? The issue of the effect of electromagnetic energy emitted from the proposed base station raised the question of the ecological sustainability of the development, and in particular the applicability of the precautionary principle to the development. The court outlined the basic concept of ecologically sustainable development and its applicability to the determination of development applications. It then focused on the precautionary principle and its applicability to the proposed development in this case. It was of the view that the emission levels complied with the adopted public health and safety standard. The precautionary principle was not applicable where there was no threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. There was no probative evidence on which the court could find an adverse effect on the amenity of the location or on public health and safety due to the development. The corresponding perception of adverse effects was unsubstantiated and without rational foundation. The court had to make its determination on the basis of reason and substantiated evidence. Therefore there was not basis for a refusal of the proposal. The appeal was upheld and development consent was granted subject to conditions.

Referencias

Cites

Carstens (Applicant) v. Pittwater Council (Respondent)

Jurisprudencia | Otros | Australia | Nov 10, 1999

Palabra clave: EIA, Manejo de tierras, Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos

Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA

BGP Properties Pty Limited v. Lake Macquarie City Council

Jurisprudencia | Otros | Australia | Ago 12, 2004

Palabra clave: Zonas húmedas, Subdivisión de tierras, Autorización/permiso, Desarrollo sostenible, Zonificación, Uso sostenible, Contaminación acústica

Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA

BT Goldsmith Planning Services Pty Limited v. Blacktown City Council

Jurisprudencia | Otros | Australia | Jul 1, 2005

Palabra clave: EIA, Manejo de tierras

Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA

Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project

Jurisprudencia | Corte internacional | Hungría, Eslovaquia | Sep 25, 1997

Palabra clave: Solución de controversias, Desarrollo sostenible, Normas sobre calidad del agua, Erosión, Conservación de energía/producción de energía, Acuerdo internacional-texto, Uso sostenible, Captación de agua, EIA, Contrato/acuerdo, Acuerdo internacional-implementación

Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA

A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.)

Jurisprudencia | Nacional - corte superior | India | Mar 15, 1999

Palabra clave: Principio de cautela, Cuenca/área de captación/cuenca colectora, Sustancias peligrosas, Zona de conservación de aguas, Autorización/permiso, EIA, Normas sobre calidad del agua

Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA

Gales Holdings Pty Limited v. Tweed Shire Council

Jurisprudencia | Otros | Australia | Feb 27, 2006

Palabra clave: Drenaje/bonificación, EIA, Principio de cautela, Especies animales protegidas

Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA