Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Port Stephens Pearls Pty Limited v. Minister for Infrastructure and Planning

Pays/Territoire
Australie
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Aoû 15, 2005
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
Juge
Talbot
Numéro de référence
NSWLEC 426
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Mer
Mot clé
Principe de précaution Aire marine Monitorage
Résumé
The subject of these proceedings was a development application lodged with the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning by Port Stephens Pearls Pty Limited. The development application sought consent to establish a pearl farm in Port Stephens using sub-surface longlines. The development application was refused for the following reasons: a. That the sensitivity of both the development and the receiving environment and the implications of the proposal for the establishment of a Marine Park in the waters of Port Stephens warranted that no additional level of environmental risk could be tolerated. b. That the ongoing risks associated with the proposal could not be eliminated with any certainty; and c. Given the above and the level of community opposition to the proposal it was not in the public interest. The objectors were generally critical of the level of uncertainty and doubt regarding environmental impacts and they were concerned about a potentially severe impact upon the recreational and scenic values of the Port Stephens area. Conversely the supporters of the proposal referred to the economic potential in terms of employment opportunities and enhancement of the reputation of the area by positive identification with the pearl industry. The court analyzed the impacts on water quality, on marine life and the visual impact. It emphasized that the principles of ecologically sustainable development had to be a factor in the consideration of a development application. The requirement in s 79C(1)(e) of the EP&A Act to take account of the public interest brought with it the obligation to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development including the precautionary principle. The application of the precautionary principle as a driving force behind the consideration of the application did not lead to a determination to refuse consent. The element of caution nevertheless dictated that the Court needed to minimize any potential risk of an adverse impact from the proposal no matter how remotely connected or unlikely the manifestation of that risk was. Conditions requiring ongoing surveys and monitoring with appropriate built in remedial mechanisms in the event of the detection of detrimental effects reflected this cautious approach. The court was satisfied there could be a monitoring regime that would detect any emerging adverse impacts in regard to water quality, the effect on seagrasses and the impact on marine animals (particularly the population of resident dolphins) and thus enable the appropriate authority to require them to be addressed if they arise. In conclusion, the court was satisfied that the proposed development could be approved subject to the conditions outlined above.
Texte intégral
426.htm