KEPCO Bylong Australia Pty Ltd v Bylong Valley Protection Alliance Inc

(2021) 250 LGERA 39; [2021] NSWCA 216

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Error of law
4. › Review of decision of consent authority
5. › Construction of State Environmental Planning Policy
6. › Whether decision-maker considered conditions aimed at ensuring greenhouse gas emissions minimised to greatest extent practicable
7. › State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (NSW), cl 14(1)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Error of law
4. › Obligation to consider case presented by applicant
5. › Minimising scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions of thermal coal
6. › Whether refusal of proposal could lead to use of inferior resource with higher emissions
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Error of law
4. › Reference in reasons to 'no evidence'
5. › Where information before decision-maker
6. › Whether reasons indicated decision-maker not satisfied that information provided rational basis for finding sought
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development application
3. › Refusal of consent
4. › State significant development
5. › Coal mine proposal
6. › Consent required from Independent Planning Commission
7. › Construction of Mining SEPP, cl 14
8. › Conditions of development
9. › State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (NSW), cl 14

Quick Take

The consent authority has discretion to treat the NSW Climate Change Policy Framework as an 'applicable' policy under cl 14(2) of the Mining SEPP for coal mine development applications, and cl 14(1) requires consideration of conditions minimising all categories of GHG emissions (including Scope 3) as part of a single consent determination function.