Woodhouse v Wyong Shire Council & Others (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 83

Woodhouse v Wyong Shire Council & Others (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 83

The amended four-shed proposal was acceptable because the joint expert evidence established that, if developed and managed under the proposed conditions and Environmental Management Plan, it should result in acceptable odour impacts, noise impacts could be addressed by conditions, and the reduction from six sheds to four sheds was only a minor change that substantially reduced detrimental effects without changing the nature of the poultry farm; accordingly renotification could be dispensed with under s 79(6) and consent should be approved subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Objector Appeal Under S 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Development Consent for Designated Development / Judgment No 2 on Amended Proposal and Disputed Conditions Following Earlier Merits Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; amended development approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'designated Development' 'poultry Farm' 'development Consent Conditions' 'odour Impacts' 'noise Impacts' 'renotification of Amended Application']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'designated Development' 'poultry Farm' 'development Consent Conditions' 'odour Impacts' 'noise Impacts' 'renotification of Amended Application']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Objector Appeal Under S 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Development Consent for Designated Development / Judgment No 2 on Amended Proposal and Disputed Conditions Following Earlier Merits Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended proposal for four tunnel-ventilated poultry sheds and a maximum of 168,000 birds satisfactorily addressed odour impacts on nearby existing and proposed residences.' 'Whether the amendment from six sheds to four sheds required renotification under s 79(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether altered noise impacts arising from the amended plans could be addressed through conditions.' 'Which disputed conditions should be imposed on the development consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended four-shed proposal was acceptable because the joint expert evidence established that, if developed and managed under the proposed conditions and Environmental Management Plan, it should result in acceptable odour impacts, noise impacts could be addressed by conditions, and the reduction from six sheds to four sheds was only a minor change that substantially reduced detrimental effects without changing the nature of the poultry farm; accordingly renotification could be dispensed with under s 79(6) and consent should be approved subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; amended development approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The demolition of five existing naturally ventilated poultry sheds and the replacement with four tunnel ventilated poultry sheds and the subdivision of the existing two lots to create two different lots on the property known as "Longridge Estate", RMB 2210 Springs Rd, Kulnura is approved...