30
failed to provide scientific reasons to justify the choice of a GHG reduction target of
20% by 2020, for instance by presenting long-term references scenarios to prove
how the currently postponed reduction could nonetheless lead to achieving the overall 2° target (para. 52).
The Appellate Court judgment in Urgenda firmly reinforces the case for the
employment of right claims in climate change litigation as linked to scientific evidence that mitigation action is vital for preventing dangerous climate change (Peel
and Osofsky 2018).
3.2 Gloucester Resource Limited v. Minister for Planning
Australia is the world’s largest exporter and fourth largest producer of coal. Yet, the
country also holds a rather remarkable track record of successful attempts to halt
fossil fuels projects, thus placing at the forefront of the permit climate litigation
(McAllister 2008). Gloucester Resource Ltd. v. Ministry of Planning (also known as
the Rocky Hill case) represents the first instance when an Australian court has denied
the application for a coal mining project not only on the basis of unacceptable planning, visual and social impacts, but to prevent a new source of GHG emissions
(Hughes 2019, p. 6).
9
In March 2010 a mining company (Gloucester Resources
Limited, GRL) commenced extensive exploration, preparation and investigation
into an 830 ha open-cut coal mine (the Rocky Hill Coal Project) in a valley near the
small country town of Gloucester, New South Wales. Two years after the initial
project planning, GRL applied to the Department of Planning and Environment
(DPE) for development consent to begin operations. In 2016, the application was
accepted, amendments were made, and the application was placed on public exhibition for three months. During the exhibition period, 2570 submissions were received,
approximately 90% of which in opposition to the mine project. By the end of 2017,
following DPE’s recommendation, the amended application was rejected under
Article 89 of the 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Planning
and Assessment Commission, acting on behalf of the Minister for Planning, justified its refusal on three reasons, namely: (1) the incompatibility with existing,
approved and preferred land uses in the selected area; (2) the visual impact of the
project; (3) the overall lack of public interest.
GRL filed an appeal before the NSW Land and Environment Court, in person of
Chief Justice Hon Preston. The local community action group, Groundswell
Gloucester Inc. (GG), joined the Minister for Planning as respondents. On February
8, 2019, Chief Justice Preston dismissed the appeal and rejected the development
application.
At the hearing, GG grounded the refusal request on the fundamental argument
that GHG emissions generated by mine site activities, as cumulated with the
9 Gloucester Resources Limited v. Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7.
M. Fermeglia
failed to provide scientific reasons to justify the choice of a GHG reduction target of
20% by 2020, for instance by presenting long-term references scenarios to prove
how the currently postponed reduction could nonetheless lead to achieving the overall 2° target (para. 52).
The Appellate Court judgment in Urgenda firmly reinforces the case for the
employment of right claims in climate change litigation as linked to scientific evidence that mitigation action is vital for preventing dangerous climate change (Peel
and Osofsky 2018).
3.2 Gloucester Resource Limited v. Minister for Planning
Australia is the world’s largest exporter and fourth largest producer of coal. Yet, the
country also holds a rather remarkable track record of successful attempts to halt
fossil fuels projects, thus placing at the forefront of the permit climate litigation
(McAllister 2008). Gloucester Resource Ltd. v. Ministry of Planning (also known as
the Rocky Hill case) represents the first instance when an Australian court has denied
the application for a coal mining project not only on the basis of unacceptable planning, visual and social impacts, but to prevent a new source of GHG emissions
(Hughes 2019, p. 6).
9
In March 2010 a mining company (Gloucester Resources
Limited, GRL) commenced extensive exploration, preparation and investigation
into an 830 ha open-cut coal mine (the Rocky Hill Coal Project) in a valley near the
small country town of Gloucester, New South Wales. Two years after the initial
project planning, GRL applied to the Department of Planning and Environment
(DPE) for development consent to begin operations. In 2016, the application was
accepted, amendments were made, and the application was placed on public exhibition for three months. During the exhibition period, 2570 submissions were received,
approximately 90% of which in opposition to the mine project. By the end of 2017,
following DPE’s recommendation, the amended application was rejected under
Article 89 of the 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Planning
and Assessment Commission, acting on behalf of the Minister for Planning, justified its refusal on three reasons, namely: (1) the incompatibility with existing,
approved and preferred land uses in the selected area; (2) the visual impact of the
project; (3) the overall lack of public interest.
GRL filed an appeal before the NSW Land and Environment Court, in person of
Chief Justice Hon Preston. The local community action group, Groundswell
Gloucester Inc. (GG), joined the Minister for Planning as respondents. On February
8, 2019, Chief Justice Preston dismissed the appeal and rejected the development
application.
At the hearing, GG grounded the refusal request on the fundamental argument
that GHG emissions generated by mine site activities, as cumulated with the
9 Gloucester Resources Limited v. Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7.
M. Fermeglia