Whilst the amendment is clear in the Secretary's discretion, it still remains somewhat murky in relation to the Bowdens DA as that was the specific legal case that blew this whole thing up. There is the potential that the Secretary will heed caution with regards to Bowdens for fear of legal and/or public backlash for potentially overstepping his/her power reinstating the Consent. Specifically, the Secretary may wish to avoid the potential to be accused of retrospectively overriding the legal frame work that existed at the time of the existing public hearing and subsequent IPC determination. Compounding the legal ambiguity in the Secretary's power (specifically in relation to the Bowdens DA) is that the court of appeal, infamously, ruled that the power supply should have been included in the EIS and that the wholistic impact should have been subject to the public hearing and IPC assessment...
I'm not saying it's a likely outcome nor is it a view that I share, but there is certainly the potential for the Secretary to view Bowdens as a legal hot potato and direct them to conduct an additional public hearing that is inclusive of the offsite enabling infrastructure (power supply impacts).
SVL Price at posting:
7.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)