Background
Coomealla Investments appealed Wentworth Shire Council’s refusal of Development Application No 2024/134 for the redevelopment and expansion of its existing grape-processing operation at 28 Jindalee Road, Coomealla. The amended proposal included increasing processing capacity from 30,000 to 80,000 tonnes of grapes annually, establishing winemaking operations, upgrading a wastewater treatment plant, constructing connecting pipelines, and irrigating specified land with treated wastewater.
The development was both designated and integrated development. Council had refused the application because general terms of approval had not been obtained from the NSW Environment Protection Authority. At a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties agreed on amended plans and conditions that resolved the contentions.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner O’Neill upheld the appeal and granted development consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The Commissioner was satisfied that the parties’ agreed outcome was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions.
The Court accepted that the concerns relevant to EPA approval had been addressed through expert evidence and agreed conditions. It also accepted that the site was suitable, including in relation to contamination and hazards planning requirements. The consent contains a deferred commencement condition: it cannot operate until the cleanup of Lot 989, required under an EPA Clean-Up Notice, has been completed to the EPA’s satisfaction.
Key Takeaways
- A conciliated agreement may be implemented where it is a decision the Court could lawfully make.
- Integrated-development concerns may be addressed through evidence and enforceable consent conditions.
- The approval is conditional on EPA-satisfactory completion of the existing cleanup process.
Why It Matters
The decision permits a substantial expansion of a grape-processing and winemaking operation while tying the approval to environmental safeguards, including wastewater-management conditions and remediation of contaminated land.
It also illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in resolving development appeals through conciliation where amended documentation and conditions address the issues that led to refusal.