Woodhouse v Wyong Shire Council & Others [2005] NSWLEC 709

Woodhouse v Wyong Shire Council & Others [2005] NSWLEC 709

The Court was not satisfied that construction of more than three sheds (125,000 birds) could proceed without exceeding acceptable odour limits, due to unresolved conflict in expert odour evidence. Staged approval under s 80A(4) was not appropriate as it would result in uncertainty on a fundamental aspect of the development. However, the SEPP 1 objection to the minimum lot size was well founded given the consistent objectives, the reconfiguration of existing lots, and compliance with planning principles if development is limited to the acceptable odour threshold.

Parties
Applicant: Harvey Woodhouse; First Respondent: Wyong Shire Council; Second Respondents: Michael Schembri and Mary Jane Schembri
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 S 98 / Judgment—interlocutory Orders, Further Mention Listed
Outcome
No final orders made; proceedings listed for further mention to allow amendment of proposal by second respondents.
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Poultry Farm, Odour Impacts, Noise Impacts, Subdivision, Planning Controls, SEPP 1 Objection
Environmental Law Planning Law Administrative Law Development Consent Poultry Farm Odour Impacts Noise Impacts Subdivision +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harvey Woodhouse

Applicant

Wyong Shire Council

First Respondent

Michael Schembri and Mary Jane Schembri

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 S 98 / Judgment—interlocutory Orders, Further Mention Listed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed development will create unacceptable odour impacts
  2. 2 Whether the proposed development will create unacceptable noise impacts
  3. 3 Whether further information is required to address the long-term management of the proposed development

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that construction of more than three sheds (125,000 birds) could proceed without exceeding acceptable odour limits, due to unresolved conflict in expert odour evidence. Staged approval under s 80A(4) was not appropriate as it would result in uncertainty on a fundamental aspect of the development. However, the SEPP 1 objection to the minimum lot size was well founded given the consistent objectives, the reconfiguration of existing lots, and compliance with planning principles if development is limited to the acceptable odour threshold.

Court Disposition

No final orders made; proceedings listed for further mention to allow amendment of proposal by second respondents.

Orders

  • The proceedings be listed for mention at 9.30 am on 20 January 2006 before Commissioner Brown for the making of final orders or if conditions have not been agreed, directions for a further hearing confined to the conditions.