The Land and Environment Court has dismissed the Wollar Progress Association’s judicial review challenge of the NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) decision to approve the Wilpinjong Extension Project.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In April 2017, the PAC – since replaced by the Independent Planning Commission – approved the project to extend open-cut mining operations for an extra seven years until 2033 and bring the mine closer to the village of Wollar.
Association representatives, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO NSW), brought court action in August challenging this decision.
They argued in a February hearing that the NSW Climate Change Policy Framework and the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to the Paris Agreement were relevant policies that the PAC was required - but failed - to have regard to when considering the downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal from Wilpinjong.
And secondly, that the PAC did not undertake a proper assessment of the impacts on biodiversity, as the mine extension would clear endangered ecological communities. Specifically the project would require clearance of approximately 354 hectares of native vegetation in the project open cut extension and infrastructure areas.
In the company’s response they submitted that the PAC did exactly what s 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) requires, and found the impacts of the proposal acceptable, when properly delineated, placed in a regional context, and with its protective and mitigation measures and recommended conditions in place.
Also that some of the relevant woodland is covered by the existing approval and so “could (and would) be cleared anyway [before 2026] even if the new consent was not granted, and even though the conditions under the Previous Approval relating to offsets for such clearing were reiterated in the Consent”.
Justice Sheahan said in his decision, “I have concluded that the PAC gave exactly that type of ‘close consideration’ to the issues and the material in this case, and that the compelling submissions made on the company’s behalf are to be clearly preferred”.
“I am satisfied that all the material and information I have surveyed in this judgment was indeed before the PAC, and was considered by it, as it reached its decision on this project, and prepared its Determination Report.”
The PAC reached it’s decision on the project a week after public submissions closed and two weeks after the public meeting. Of 325 submissions received, 284 objected on the grounds of the impacts on the remaining community, Aboriginal heritage and biodiversity.