/

/

Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2025] NSWLEC 1795 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1795

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2025-11-12|Before: Gray C

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2025-11-12

Before

Gray C

Catchwords

APPEAL — new maintenance shed, office building and parking facilities
for existing hatchery — conciliation conference
— agreement reached
— orders made

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English brief of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.

General information, not legal advice.

Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.

Catchwords

APPEAL — new maintenance shed, office building and parking facilitiesfor existing hatchery — conciliation conference— agreement reached— orders made

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2025] NSWLEC 1795

Hearing dates: Conciliation conference 4 November 2025

Date of orders: 12 November 2025

Decision date: 12 November 2025

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Gray C

Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The Applicant is to pay, within 28 days of the final order, the Council’s Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) s 8.15(3) costs thrown away as a result of the amendment to the development application in the amount of $15,000.
(2) The appeal is upheld.
(3) Development Application DA/2023/78/1 (as amended) for the erection of an office and truck facilities used for the existing hatchery business on the site the land at 205 Picton Road, Picton is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

Catchwords: APPEAL — new maintenance shed, office building and parking facilities for existing hatchery — conciliation conference — agreement reached — orders made

Legislation Cited: Coal Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 2017 (NSW), s 22
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 4.16, 8.7, 8.15 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 34 Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), s 91 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 37, 38 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Pt 6.2, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.9 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, ss 2.48, 2.119, 2.122 Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011, cll 5.18, 7.1, 7.5, 7.9

COMMISSIONER: At 205 Picton Road, Picton, Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd (Multiquip) operates a hatchery, where eggs that are delivered to the site are incubated and then sold as food chickens upon hatching. With Australians eating more chicken than any other meat, business is going well and Multiquip seeks development consent for a new maintenance shed, office building, and hardstand area for truck and vehicle parking, to support its ongoing operation. A development application was lodged with the respondent on 27 February 2023, which was refused on 2 October 2024. Multiquip appeals against that decision, pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [11] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.
Following an adjournment of the hearing, the Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 4 November 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.
At the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. The agreement was filed the same day, and follows the Council’s approval of an application for an amendment to a development application pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW). The amendments include lowering the pitch and height of the maintenance shed, reducing the number of maintenance bays, providing widened driveways and pedestrian paths, and providing an updated traffic and parking assessment report to address the interaction between the proposed development and an existing transport depot that operates on the site.
The decision agreed upon is for the grant of development consent subject to conditions of consent pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act. The signed agreement is supported by a statement of Jurisdictional Pre-requisites that sets out the jurisdictional prerequisites to the exercise of the power to grant development consent (the Jurisdictional Statement). I have considered the contents of the Statement, together with the documents referred to therein, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, the documents referred to in the signed agreement, the assessment report dated 2 October 2024, and the documents that are referred to in condition 2 of Annexure A to the agreement. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision to grant development consent to the amended application subject to conditions of consent is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. This test is concerned with there being no jurisdictional constraints that preclude the making of orders in accordance with the decision that the parties’ have agreed upon (see McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 at [4], [51]). I formed this state of satisfaction as each of the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties is met, for the following reasons:
The development works are for the purposes of agriculture and transport depot, which are both nominated permissible uses in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone in which the site is located, pursuant to the Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011 (WLEP).
Clause 5.18 of the WLEP applies to development for the purpose of intensive livestock agriculture, and therefore applies to the proposed development. Based on the Jurisdictional Statement and the Statement of Environmental Effects dated 18 October 2023, and the documents referred to therein, I have taken into consideration the matters in cl 5.18(3) of the WLEP.
Services for the supply of water, electricity and the disposal of sewage are already available on the site, and therefore the requirements of cl 7.1 of the WLEP concerning essential services are satisfied.
The development application includes earthworks for the levelling of the site for the maintenance shed and hardstand area. Based on the letter dated 17 October 2025 prepared by Idealgeotech and the Cut and Fill Plan dated 15 October 2025, I have considered the matters set out in cl 7.5(3) of the WLEP.
Clause 7.9 of the WLEP concerns development on land identified as metropolitan rural area, and applies to the site. Based on the Jurisdictional Statement, the Statement of Environmental Effects dated 18 October 2023 and the Supplementary Information to the Statement of Environmental Effects dated 7 October 2025, I have considered the matters in cl 7.9(3).
Consideration has been given as to whether the subject site is contaminated as required by s 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021. Based on the Statement of Environmental Effects dated 20 August 2025, the site’s history has been reviewed, and the site is unlikely to be contaminated. An isolated stockpile on the site, Stockpile 1, was identified as exceeding the ESL criteria for Benzo(a)pyrene, and is required by the agreed conditions of consent (at condition 9) to be removed from the site and disposed of at a licensed waste facility.
The site has frontage to Picton Road, which is a classified road, and s 2.119 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (SEPP TI) applies. Vehicular access could not be obtained from a road other than the classified road, and, based on the Traffic and Parking Assessment Report dated 8 October 2025, I am satisfied that the safety, efficiency, and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of the vehicular access or the emissions from the development. Consistent with the requirements of s 2.119(2)(c), the proposed development is not of a type that is sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions.
The proposed development is traffic-generating development to which s 2.122 of the SEPP TI applies. Consistent with the requirements of s 2.122(4), Transport for NSW was notified of the development application, and I have taken into consideration their submission in response, which is dated 7 August 2024. Further, based on the Traffic and Parking Assessment Report dated 8 October 2025, I have considered the matters required to be considered by s 2.122(4)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the SEPP TI.
The proposed development could affect an electricity power line or an electricity distribution pole, as a result of which s 2.48 of the SEPP TI requires notification to the electricity supply authority and consideration of their response. Consistent with those requirements, Endeavour Energy was notified of the development application and I have considered the content of their most recent response, dated 9 October 2025.
The site falls within the Hawkesbury-Napean River Catchment, such that Pt 6.2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 applies to the development application. Based on the stormwater management plans and accompanying water quality assessment dated 15 October 2025, the Jurisdictional Statement, and the Statement of Environmental Effects dated 20 August 2025, I am satisfied of the matters in ss 6.6(2) and 6.7(2). Further, the development will not change any public access to recreational areas of waterbodies, and I am therefore satisfied of the matters in s 6.9(2).
The development application was notified from 3 March 2023 to 31 March 2023, and there were no written submissions received during the period of notification.
The Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions notes that the proposal is integrated development pursuant to s 91 of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). The development application was referred to the Department of Planning and Environment, who indicated, in correspondence dated 3 May 2023, that a controlled activity approval is not required for the proposed development.
The site is located within the Wilton Mine Subsidence District and requires the concurrence of the Subsidence Advisory pursuant to s 22 of the Coal Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 2017. The Subsidence Advisory issued general terms of approval dated 9 November 2023, which have been incorporated into the agreed conditions of consent, at condition 4.
Having reached the state of satisfaction that the decision is one that the Court could have made in the exercise of its functions, s 34(3)(a) of the LEC Act requires me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The LEC Act also requires me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)).
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any evaluative judgment on the matters that were originally in dispute between the parties, or any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.
The Court notes that:
The Wollondilly Shire Council (the Council) as the relevant consent authority has agreed, under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), to the applicant amending the development application DA/2023/78/1 the subject of these proceedings as shown in the following amended plans and reports: