Victoria

Australia

New South Wales

Tasmania

Northern Territory

Queensland

Western Australia

Australian Capital Territory

South Australia

Paul Daniel Healy and Bronwyn Leah Pearcy filed an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, as according to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) § 82, opposing a permit granted by the Yarra City Council. The permit granted the construction of two dwellings on a lot at 9 Arthur Street, Fairfield. The applicants raised issues, including, but not limited to: the shadowing of solar panels on the adjoining property to the south, the removal of vegetation and impact on wildlife, and the proposal will not result in any net benefit/ improvement to the area.

On March 6, 2025, Tribunal member Cassandra Rea varied the decision of the Yarra City Council after hearing the application. While noting that "[t]he response to global warming or climate change is one of the key issues identified for this application," Ms. Rea concluded that there will not be an unreasonable impact on the solar panels on the adjoining property under Yarra Planning Scheme clause 55. The court concluded that the adjoining dwelling to the south will still achieve a reasonable level of solar access, based on the number of unaffected panels, the connection of the panels, and the level of solar cell efficiency. The Tribunal also noted that an alternate plan suggested by the applicants can result in less energy efficiency for the proposed dwelling, and that the Tribunal's role is to "determine whether the proposal is acceptable, not preferable." On additional issues, such as whether the proposal will result in an unacceptable amenity impact upon an adjoining property or whether the proposal will be appropriate in the neighbourhood based on landscaping concerns, the Tribunal found that the balancing of the Yarra City Council was proper.

Two separate applicants each brought a case against the Frankston City Council, opposing the Council's decision not to grant construction projects. Both construction projects were intended to build several dwellings, each in different central accessways of Seaford. The cases were heard and determined together, although the proceedings remained separate. On September 19, 2024, Tribunal Member Christopher Harty decided to uphold the City Council's decisions, refusing to grant the proposals.

The proposals were originally referred to Melbourne Water by the City Council because the proposed building sites are affected by the Special Building Overlay (SBO)—meaning that the sites are prone to overland flooding. Melbourne Water objected to both projects, citing unacceptable flood risks that would affect access and egress from the sites. More specifically, Melbourne Water explained that its decisions were based on the following findings: (i) Because the developements do not assist in the protection of life and property from overland flows, they do not uphold the objecitves of Floodplains of the Frankston Planning Scheme (the "Scheme") Clause 13.03-1S; (ii) The development is contrary to the decision guidelines Clause 65.01; (iii) The development does not suit Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 due to the effects the environment may have on the development; and (iv) The development does not adequately address the objectives of Part 8 of the Guidelines for Development in Flood Affected Areas. On the other hand, the applicants argued that the proposals are consistent with the policy directions for housing in the Frankston Planning Scheme, based on the sites' proximity to the Frankston Metropolitan Activity Centre, where medium-density residential development has occurred, and because they deemed the risk to the development and future occupants as reasonable and acceptable.

The Tribunal considered three separate issues before concluding that it would reject the applications. First of all, dwellings were found to be suitable for the site. Strategic policy and the established residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood supported the use of the sites for housing. Second, similarly, the plans were found to respect the neighborhood character. Third, however, the Member concluded that the risk associated with the flood is too great for the permit to be granted. He concluded that although the court must consider the inefficiency of leaving empty a site with a high housing demand, it is unreasonable to require occupants to be isolated in their houses for 10~12 hours during a flood. Moreover, the court acknowledged that it has an obligation, under the Planning Scheme, to consider the effect of climate change on floods, which only heightens the risks associated with them. In its conclusion, the Tribunal, while rejecting the applications, urged Melbourne Water, the City Council, and the State Government to urgently address the issue of inadequate stormwater drainage.

The Supreme Court of Victoria considered whether the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) acted lawfully when it amended the licences of Victoria’s major coal-fired power stations to tighten limits on various pollutants but declined to impose direct restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. 

Environment Victoria argued that the EPA was legally required to consider the principles of environmental protection in the Environment Protection Act 1970, the climate change considerations in the Climate Change Act 2017, relevant State environment protection policies, and the recommendations of a community consultation process, and that its failure to regulate greenhouse gases rendered its decisions invalid. 

The Court accepted that climate change considerations under the Climate Change Act were “mandatory” factors for decisions made under the 1970 Act, but it reasoned that these obligations only applied to the specific decisions the EPA actually made—namely, to amend conditions relating to pollutants such as mercury, particulates, and sulphur dioxide. Because the EPA had not chosen to exercise its power to regulate greenhouse gases, the Court held it was not unlawful for it to limit its consideration to pollutant emissions. 

The Court further found that the “principles of environmental protection” in the 1970 Act, which used the word “should,” were aspirational rather than mandatory, meaning their omission could not invalidate the decision. It also held that the EPA had adequately considered relevant State policies and the outcomes of the statutory consultation process, and that its reasoning process, while not detailed on every point, was intelligible and sufficient. 

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the EPA’s approach reflected a permissible exercise of statutory discretion: it had lawfully decided to strengthen controls on certain pollutants without venturing into greenhouse gas regulation, a matter Parliament had not explicitly required. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Environment Victoria’s challenge, emphasising that if society wishes for greenhouse gas emissions to be directly regulated through licensing, this must be mandated by legislative reform rather than imposed by the courts.

On September 20, 2021, Environment Victoria launched a legal action against the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and AGL Energy, EnergyAustralia, and Alinta, owners of Victoria’s three remaining coal-burning power stations. The plaintiffs question EPA’s review of three power station licenses, which lacked more stringent limits on GHG emissions. Environment Victoria argues that the EPA has failed to require best practice management of toxic emissions, take proper account of the environmental principles in the Environment Protection Act and consider key sections of the 2017 Climate Change Act. Environment Australia asks the court to revoke, amend, and attach certain conditions to the licenses. 

In November 2017, the EPA announced the review of Victoria’s coal power stations. In March 2021, the EPA announced new license conditions for the state’s three remaining coal power stations. In August 2021, the EPA granted the permits and capped GHG emissions at “approximately current levels,” instead of lowering the required standards. Victoria’s Climate Change Act requires the EPA to consider climate change in their review of coal power station licenses, which, according to the plaintiffs, the EPA failed to do. The emissions form the coal-burning power stations represent about 40% of Victoria’s total emissions. The plaintiffs also question the limits on toxic air pollution, including sulfur dioxide, fine particles (PM2.5) and mercury. 

The trial commenced before Justice James Gorton of the Victorian Supreme Court on October 18, 2022. The Supreme Court upheld EPA's limits on emissions and pollutants from coal powered plants.


Geography

Victoria

Recent cases