HomePoliticalMackenzie Country Solar Farm Should Have Been Declined, Says EDS

Mackenzie Country Solar Farm Should Have Been Declined, Says EDS



The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) has today filed a
High Court appeal challenging the fast-track decision to
approve the Haldon Solar Farm in the Mackenzie
Basin.

“The case raises an important question for
the fast-track regime: how far can an expert panel go in
setting conditions to address adverse impacts on nationally
important Threatened and At Risk species and ecosystems?”
says Shay Schlaepfer, EDS Chief Operating Officer and
General Counsel.

“The answer cannot be to approve
the project now and leave fundamental questions about how
those effects will be addressed for someone else to
determine years in the future.

“Yet that is what the
Haldon consent conditions do.

“The Haldon fast-track
Panel imposed conditions requiring a Technical Review Panel
to determine, in ten years’ time, whether specified ‘no
net loss’ ecological outcomes have been
achieved.

“If they have not, that Review Panel can
require additional ecological compensation, potentially
including the acquisition of up to 170 hectares of
additional land and habitat. That includes land that has not
yet been identified, will require third-party agreement and
likely future regulatory approvals.

“These are
substantive decisions about whether, and how, the
significant ecological effects of this project can actually
be addressed.

“EDS says conditions of this nature
are unlawful. They delegate decision-making that the Haldon
Panel itself was required to undertake, including
determining the extent of residual ecological effects and
whether adequate compensation could address
them.

Advertisement – scroll to continue reading

“They are also invalid for their uncertainty.
There is no guarantee that land required for additional
compensation will be available in 10 years’ time, or that
it will be fit for purpose in addressing the ecological loss
caused by the solar farm.

“Given this, EDS says that
the Panel should have declined the
project.

“Fast-track Panels must ensure that the
protection of significant ecological values are addressed at
the time of consent. If that cannot be done with valid and
legally enforceable conditions, the approval should be
declined,” concludes Shay
Schlaepfer.

© Scoop Media

 



Source link

- Advertisment -
Times of Georgia

Most Popular