Environment Protection Authority v Crown in the Right of New South Wales (Office of Environment and Heritage)

The case involved the Environment Protection Authority, as the appellant, and the Crown in the Right of New South Wales (Office of Environment and Heritage), as the respondent. The dispute centred around the environmental impact assessment for a coal seam gas project proposed by Santos Limited in the Gloucester Basin, New South Wales. The matter was heard by the New South Wales Land and Environment Court, which was tasked with determining whether the Environmental Protection Authority acted lawfully and reasonably in approving the project's environmental impact statement.

The central legal issue was whether the Environmental Protection Authority exercised its discretion under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 correctly in approving the project's environmental impact statement. The appellant argued that the Authority failed to adequately consider the cumulative environmental impacts of the project, particularly in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and water resources. The respondent contended that the Authority's decision was within its lawful powers and adequately considered the relevant environmental factors.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the approval process, focusing on whether the Authority exercised its discretion lawfully and reasonably. The court held that the Authority did not err in its consideration of the environmental impact statement, finding that it had appropriately weighed the relevant factors and provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court further held that the Authority's assessment of cumulative impacts was sufficient, and that the decision was not unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders included the dismissal of the appeal by the Environmental Protection Authority, with the court upholding the decision of the Office of Environment and Heritage to approve the environmental impact statement for the coal seam gas project. The specific details of the orders are outlined in paragraph [190] of the judgment.