THE recent decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Australian Conservation Foundation and others v Minister for Planning, lends weigh to the enlarged scope of environmental impact assessment initially considered in Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc.
The president of the VCAT applied the test used in the Natham Dam case when directing a planning panel to evaluate the planning scheme amendment under Victoria’s Planning and Environment Act.
In the Natham Dam case the Federal Court quashed a decision by the Federal Environment Minister that a proposed dam on the Dawson River in Central Queensland was not a "controlled action" under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
The court held that the minister had failed to consider the impact of downstream pollution by irrigators, which was likely to occur as an indirect impact of the dam.
In the Victorian decision, the panel had proposed to take into account the direct implications of the mining on greenhouse gas emissions.
However, Justice Morris found that it was required also to consider the indirect greenhouse gas effects of the use of that coal in electricity generation.
While the Environmental Protection Authority in WA has for some time considered greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental impact assessment of specific projects, the ACF case calls into question the need for the inclusion of the indirect greenhouse gas impacts in the assessment of proposals at a strategic level, for example, in assessing schemes and strategic development plans.
Merinda Logie
9420 7456
Gretta Lee
9429 7606
Minter Ellison