The following information was summarised/quoted from IMPACT - Public interest environmental law - The quarterly journal of the National Environmental Defender's Office Network, No 66 June 2002 "Environmental victory over cotton farm".

"On 8 March 2002, the Land and Environment Court upheld an appeal by environmentalist Bruce Wilson, represented by the EDO and barrister Patrick Larkin, against a development consent for a large irrigated cotton development on the Barwon-Darling River. The Court replaced the consent issued by Bourke Shire Council with a new consent containing extensive conditions aimed at ensuring the cotton development operates in a sustainable manner."

Mr Wilson's court case is important as "it demonstrates the manner in which the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) allows individuals to fight for rigorous environmental controls to be placed on developments where the relevant government authorities fail to do so. In particular. it demonstrates the type of 'best practice' that should be applied to the management of future cotton farm developments to ensure they operate sustainably."

"The case and its result send an important message to developers, councils and other government agencies that their performance in environmental regulation is being scrutinised. Where a development under consideration is a designated development. Concerned members of the public can and will exercise their rights to ensure that environmental impacts are adequately addressed."

"Given the potential environmental harm of the development. and the failure of the Council to impose conditions to manage the potential harm, the Gurrungar Environment Group decided to appeal against the Council's decision to the Land and Environment Court. Since the Group was not incorporated, and so was not legally recognised, Mr Wilson had to bring the appeal in his own name. In cases of this nature, the Court stands in the same position as the Council., and makes its own decision on whether development consent should be granted. During the case, it is possible to bring new evidence that was not before the Council."

Mr Wilson filed statements from a number of experts with the Court. Clyde Agriculture Ltd and the Council tried numerous tactics to limit Mr Wilson's case. "One of these was seeking an order from the Court that it only consider the impact of the actual water storages, and not the irrigated agriculture component of the development. Another was seeking to stop Mr Wilson from raising the issue of the impact of extraction of water from the river, on the basis that that had been considered when the water licences were granted."

"Both of these attempts were unsuccessful. However. they did have the long-term beneficial effect of establishing that where a person objects to a development that contains some components which are designated development and other components which are not designated development. that person's right to appeal against a development consent granted to the whole development extends to all parts of the development, including the non-designated component.'"

Mr Wilson was required to provide the Court with an extensive set of draft conditions which he said the Court should impose if the Court decided to grant consent to the development, in order to manage the environmental impacts. The company and the council agreed to accept nearly all of these conditions.