Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council

Résumé

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.

Références

Cites

Carstens (Applicant) v. Pittwater Council (Respondent)

Jurisprudence | Autres | Australie | Nov 10, 1999

Mot clé: EIA, Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives, Planification territoriale

Source: UNEP, InforMEA

BGP Properties Pty Limited v. Lake Macquarie City Council

Jurisprudence | Autres | Australie | Aoû 12, 2004

Mot clé: Subdivision foncière, Zones humides, Zonage, Pollution sonore (de l'environnement), Utilisation durable, Développement durable, Autorisation/permis

Source: UNEP, InforMEA

BT Goldsmith Planning Services Pty Limited v. Blacktown City Council

Jurisprudence | Autres | Australie | Jul 1, 2005

Mot clé: EIA, Planification territoriale

Source: UNEP, InforMEA

Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project

Jurisprudence | Cour internationale | Hongrie, Slovaquie | Sep 25, 1997

Mot clé: Accord international-mise en oeuvre, Développement durable, Utilisation durable, Contrat/accord, Règlement des différends, Conservation de l'énergie/production de l'énergie, Accord international-texte, Prélèvement d'eau, EIA, Érosion, Normes de qualité de l'eau

Source: UNEP, InforMEA

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

Jurisprudence | Nationale - cour supérieure | Inde | Mar 15, 1999

Mot clé: Substances dangereuses, Zone de conservation des eaux, EIA, Autorisation/permis, Normes de qualité de l'eau, Principe de précaution, Bassin/captage/bassin versant

Source: UNEP, InforMEA

Gales Holdings Pty Limited v. Tweed Shire Council

Jurisprudence | Autres | Australie | Fév 27, 2006

Mot clé: EIA, Drainage/assèchement, Espèces animales protégées, Principe de précaution

Source: UNEP, InforMEA