Legal Research
Cases
Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning

Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning

Link copied

Case Copied 8 February 2019 80 min read

Contents

On this page

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7
Hearing dates: 13-17, 20-24, 27-28 August 2018 and 16, 30 November and 7, 14 December 2018 (further evidence and written submissions)
Date of orders: 08 February 2019
Decision date: 08 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Preston CJ
Decision:
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) State significant development application No SSD5156 for the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project is determined by refusal of consent to the application.

Catchwords: APPEAL – open cut coal mine – impacts on existing, approved and likely preferred uses of land in the vicinity – high visual impact – negative social impacts – impacts of the mine on climate change – economic and public benefits of the mine and other land uses – impacts and costs of mine outweigh benefits of mine – development consent refused
Legislation Cited: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld)
Gloucester Development Control Plan 2010
Gloucester Local Environmental Plan 2010
Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld)
Paris Agreement 2015
Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2009
State Environmental Planning Policy (Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Air and Noise Impacts) 2018
State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992
Cases Cited: Abley v Yankalilla District Council (1979) 22 SASR 147; (1979) 58 LGRA 234
Aldous v Greater Taree City Council (2009) 167 LGERA 13; [2009] NSWLEC 17
Australian Conservation Foundation v Latrobe City Council (2004) 140 LGERA 100; [2004] VCAT 2029
Border Power Plant Working Group v Department of Energy 260 F Supp 2d 997 (SD Cal, 2003)
BP Australia Ltd v Campbelltown City Council (1994) 83 LGERA 274
Broad v Brisbane City Council [1986] 2 Qd R 317
Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Limited (2013) 194 LGERA 347; [2013] NSWLEC 48
Coast and Country Association of Queensland v Smith [2015] QSC 260
Coast and Country Association Queensland Inc v Smith [2016] QCA 242
Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1; [1983] HCA 21
Gippsland Coastal Board v South Gippsland Shire Council (No 2) [2008] VCAT 1545
Gray v Minister for Planning (2006) 152 LGERA 258; [2006] NSWLEC 720
Hancock Coal Pty Ltd v Kelly (No 4) (2004) 35 QLCR 56; [2014] QLC 12
Harris v Scenic Rim Regional Council (2014) 201 LGERA 12; [2014] QPEC 16
Hub Action Group v Minister for Planning (2008) 161 LGERA 136; [2008] NSWLEC 116
Hunter Environment Lobby Inc v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 221
Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 549 US 497 (2007)
Mid States Coalition for Progress v Surface Transportation Board 345 F 3d 520 (8th Cir, 2003)

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWLEC 7
Decision Date: 08 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gloucester Resources Ltd sought to appeal a decision by the Minister for Planning to refuse consent for the Rocky Hill Coal Project. The refusal was based on environmental concerns and the potential impact on the community. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the Minister for Planning was correct in concluding that the potential environmental harm from the project outweighed the benefits. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to properly consider the potential economic benefits and job creation associated with the project. The Minister contended that the environmental risks were too significant to be overlooked.

The court examined the statutory framework governing state significant developments and the assessment criteria outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It held that the Minister had appropriately weighed the environmental risks against the potential benefits. The court found that the Minister's decision was supported by the evidence and was not unreasonable. The court concluded that the Minister had correctly exercised his discretion under the relevant legislation, and the appeal was dismissed. The court also confirmed the refusal of consent for the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project.

The court's decision was based on a comprehensive review of the evidence and the application of the statutory criteria. The court found that the Minister had considered all relevant factors and had not acted beyond his powers. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the Minister had failed to properly consider the economic benefits of the project. The court held that the Minister's focus on the environmental impact was justified and that the potential harm to the environment and community outweighed the economic benefits. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and a careful application of the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) State significant development application No SSD5156 for the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project is determined by refusal of consent to the application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7
Hearing dates:	13-17, 20-24, 27-28 August 2018 and 16, 30 November and 7, 14 December 2018 (further evidence and written submissions)
Date of orders:	08 February 2019
Decision date:	08 February 2019
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Preston CJ
Decision:	The Court orders: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) State significant development application No SSD5156 for the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project is determined by refusal of consent to the application.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – open cut coal mine – impacts on existing, approved and likely preferred uses of land in the vicinity – high visual impact – negative social impacts – impacts of the mine on climate change – economic and public benefits of the mine and other land uses – impacts and costs of mine outweigh benefits of mine – development consent refused
Legislation Cited:	Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) Gloucester Development Control Plan 2010 Gloucester Local Environmental Plan 2010 Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) Paris Agreement 2015 Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2009 State Environmental Planning Policy (Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Air and Noise Impacts) 2018 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992
Cases Cited:	Abley v Yankalilla District Council (1979) 22 SASR 147; (1979) 58 LGRA 234 Aldous v Greater Taree City Council (2009) 167 LGERA 13; [2009] NSWLEC 17 Australian Conservation Foundation v Latrobe City Council (2004) 140 LGERA 100; [2004] VCAT 2029 Border Power Plant Working Group v Department of Energy 260 F Supp 2d 997 (SD Cal, 2003) BP Australia Ltd v Campbelltown City Council (1994) 83 LGERA 274 Broad v Brisbane City Council [1986] 2 Qd R 317 Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Limited (2013) 194 LGERA 347; [2013] NSWLEC 48 Coast and Country Association of Queensland v Smith [2015] QSC 260 Coast and Country Association Queensland Inc v Smith [2016] QCA 242 Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1; [1983] HCA 21 Gippsland Coastal Board v South Gippsland Shire Council (No 2) [2008] VCAT 1545 Gray v Minister for Planning (2006) 152 LGERA 258; [2006] NSWLEC 720 Hancock Coal Pty Ltd v Kelly (No 4) (2004) 35 QLCR 56; [2014] QLC 12 Harris v Scenic Rim Regional Council (2014) 201 LGERA 12; [2014] QPEC 16 Hub Action Group v Minister for Planning (2008) 161 LGERA 136; [2008] NSWLEC 116 Hunter Environment Lobby Inc v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 221 Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 549 US 497 (2007) Mid States Coalition for Progress v Surface Transportation Board 345 F 3d 520 (8th Cir, 2003)