Selected cases

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales · [2026] NSWLEC 1333

Baillie Wines v Camden Council

A NSW Land and Environment Court case about agritourism, farm-gate premises, farm stay accommodation and rural planning permissibility.

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales5 June 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Agritourism and farm-gate concepts are not magic labels.
  • A NSW Land and Environment Court case about agritourism, farm-gate premises, farm stay accommodation and rural planning permissibility.

Use this to check

  • Planning definitions decide whether a rural tourism use is permissible.
  • Farm gate and farm stay uses usually need a genuine commercial farm connection.
  • Food and drink services may become a prohibited use if they go beyond the permitted category.

Decision snapshot

  1. What happened

    • Baillie Wines operated on land at 40 Cobbitty Road, Cobbitty, a site historically used as a winery with existing buildings, a cellar door approval dating back to 1975 and a liquor licence history dating back to 1950.
    • Baillie sought development consent for works and uses described as farm gate premises, farm stay accommodation, agricultural produce industry and intensive plant agriculture.
    • The proposal included food and drink services across existing sheds, wine tasting, a bar, indoor and outdoor seating, kitchen areas, wine barrel storage, a brewery, wine making area, fire pits, staff and amenities areas, farm stay accommodation on seven existing concrete pads, parking, access works, a petting zoo, playground and agricultural use for grapes,...
    • Camden Council refused the development application and opposed the appeal, arguing that the food and drink service and accommodation did not fit the permitted planning definitions.

  2. What the court had to decide

    • The Land and Environment Court had to decide whether the proposed food, drink, accommodation and related works met the planning definitions for farm gate premises and farm stay accommodation under the Camden planning framework, including whether the site would be a commercial farm and whether the proposed hospitality offer was sufficiently tied to...

  3. What the court decided

    • The Court dismissed Baillie Wines' appeal and refused development consent.
    • It found that the proposed food and drink service and accommodation did not meet the definitional requirement of being on a commercial farm, and that the food and drink offering went beyond agricultural products predominantly from the farm.
    • The proposed use was therefore properly characterised as prohibited food and drink or artisan food and drink industry use on the site.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Agritourism and farm-gate concepts are not magic labels.
  • If a business wants planning approval for food, drink, accommodation or events on rural land, the proposed use has to fit the planning definitions and the actual farming activity has to be commercially real.

Useful next steps

  • Planning definitions decide whether a rural tourism use is permissible.
  • Farm gate and farm stay uses usually need a genuine commercial farm connection.
  • Food and drink services may become a prohibited use if they go beyond the permitted category.
  • Existing historic use rights do not automatically approve a broader modern proposal.
  • Biosecurity, biodiversity, traffic and neighbouring rural uses can all matter in planning evidence.

Practical read

This case is useful for rural, food, drink and tourism businesses because it shows that planning labels have to match the real proposal. Calling something farm gate premises or farm stay accommodation will not work if the development does not satisfy the legal definition.

The Court looked at whether the proposed uses were on a commercial farm, whether the food and drink offering was predominantly based on agricultural products from the farm, and whether the uses were really permitted rural uses or prohibited food and drink or artisan industry uses. The proposal had a long history of winery use, but the new development was broader: brewery, hospitality, farm stay accommodation, parking, access, playground and event-style facilities.

For small businesses, the lesson is to test permissibility before spending heavily on design and DA work. Agritourism rules can help genuine farm businesses diversify, but the farming activity, product source, scale, environmental impacts and zoning need to line up. A beautiful business concept still fails if the planning pathway is wrong.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Test the exact land-use definition before lodging a development application.
  • Show how the proposed activity is connected to actual farming on the land.
  • Keep evidence of product source, scale, operating hours and patron capacity.
  • Check zoning prohibitions as well as permissible-use labels.
  • Build environmental, traffic, biosecurity and neighbour-impact evidence early.

Key takeaways

  • Planning definitions decide whether a rural tourism use is permissible.
  • Farm gate and farm stay uses usually need a genuine commercial farm connection.
  • Food and drink services may become a prohibited use if they go beyond the permitted category.
  • Existing historic use rights do not automatically approve a broader modern proposal.
  • Biosecurity, biodiversity, traffic and neighbouring rural uses can all matter in planning evidence.

Related topics

Franchising & Regulated IndustriesCommercial Leases & PropertyEnvironment, Waste & Pollution

How Sprintlaw can help

Regulatory ComplianceContract Review