A modification of a proposed activity under s 112(4)(b)(i) of the EPA Act must be assessed in the context of the project as a whole, and will not require a fresh EIS unless it involves a 'radical transformation' of the original activity. The principles of natural justice and procedural fairness do not attach to the exercise of the modification power. Conditions attached to a modification need not achieve complete finality or specificity, provided the modifications do not constitute a radical change. However, Fitzgerald JA's dissent raises the unresolved question of whether the satisfaction of s 112(4)(b)(i) is an objective jurisdictional fact or a matter for the determining authority's opinion, and whether modifications imposing new significant detrimental effects on different localities and persons exceed the power of modification.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 59 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 59 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.