W & B Cabinets v Casey CC. País/Territorio Australia Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha Oct 7, 2009 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Sede de la corte Melbourne Juez Keaney. Idioma Inglés Materia Mar, Medio ambiente gen., Tierra y suelos Palabra clave Cambio climático Ordenación de áreas costeras Manejo de tierras Resumen In this case the Applicant, Mr Hooper, lodged an application with Casey City Council for 22 dwellings to be built on the South Gippsland Highway. The subject site and neighbouring land came within a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, necessitating a permit for buildings and works. Melbourne Water and South East Water were referral authorities under the overlay, which required consideration of the susceptibility of the site to flooding. While considering tha application, Council Officers sought a direction from VCAT as to whether a Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment was required prior to the application for review proceeding. The Judge remarked: "The relevance of climate change in the planning process is still in an evolutionary stage, therefore if the Tribunal considers that it is warranted in this particular instance, a preliminary hearing or direction from the Tribunal may be appropriate. At the hearing Council acknowledged that this was more of a “merits” issue than a preliminary issue, but maintained that it was premature to grant a permit until such time as a coastal hazard vulnerability assessment had been conducted. The Judge noted that within the terms of the Practice Note the proposal could be considered a ‘large scale development/subdivision proposal which seeks to introduce significant change to built form and intensity within a coastal area. According to the Practice Note, such a development scenario might be addressed by requiring a coastal hazard vulnerability assessment ‘to determine potential exposure and development suitability of the land to evaluate risks. However he distinguished between this case and Myers v South Gippsland SC, which involved a proposed development 'directly opposite the beach and the submission from the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority was evidently not helpful in resolving the need for a further hazard assessment.' He held that the issues raised in this case were only made 'apparent after the introduction of Amendment C52'. He found that Council had been entirely correct and responsible in raising coastal vulnerability as an issue. However, he was satisfied on the basis of the intervention and advice of Melbourne Water that the relevant assessment as required by the General Practice Note had been carried out and that appropriate limitations on development had been suggested. Ultimately, the Judge held that no planning permit be issued, however, this was based on other grounds including housing policy, village character and intensity of development. Texto completo COU-156708.pdf