Browsing: <a href="/tag/built-environment">Built environment</a> <i class="grey">•</i> <a href="/tag/assessments-approvals-licensing">Assessments, approvals, licensing</a>

• 'Not now' is code for 'not ever', says Combet
  
• Renderer fined $20,000, facing more charges
  
• Ai Group says Queensland could go further in anti-green tape push
  
• Carbon price will have 'negligible' effect on construction sector, consultancy says
  
• Queensland says carbon price will have minor impact
  
• Building professionals surveyed on climate change

• R.M. Williams goes in 'boots and all' on carbon credits
  
• Melbourne City Council opts for low-emissions asphalt
  
• Xstrata seeks approval to double size of NT mine

• ACCC approves levy on paint sales to fund recycling trial
  
• NSW council releases sea-level rise policy
  
• Gunns asks Tasmanian EPA to vary pulp mill permit
  
• Time to rebuild public transport infrastructure, ACF says
  
• ESAA urges Garnaut to rethink power sector proposals

• WA exempts aquaculture industry from environmental legislation
  
• Gladstone dredging project receives green light
  
• Coalition to suspend marine sanctuaries planning processes
  
• Greens propose tougher vehicle emission standards
  
• South Hobart council to buy energy use monitors in bulk for residents

• EPA seeks comment on WA uranium proposal
  
• Wong announces tougher regulations for solar installers
  
• ACT sets out solar access policies

A company that this month won consent for a proposed 201-home project on condition that it dismantle and move houses if coastal erosion encroaches has potentially had its plans thrown into disarray by a court ruling that it unlawfully cleared the site and an order to remediate it.