Terramin loses ERD Court appeal against $30m Bird in Hand winery redevelopment at Woodside
A mining company fighting to reopen a gold mine has failed to stop one of the Adelaide Hills’ best-known wineries from going ahead with its neighbouring $30 million redevelopment.
Adelaide Hills
Don't miss out on the headlines from Adelaide Hills. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Mining company tries to block $30m winery expansion
- Lawyers for mining company forced to apologise over letters
A mining company locked in a battle over a proposed gold mine in the Adelaide Hills has failed to stop a $30 million redevelopment of a neighbouring winery.
The Environment, Resources and Development Court has dismissed an appeal by Terramin Australia against planning approval granted for an expansion of the Bird in Hand winery at Woodside.
The family-owned winery - well-known for outdoor concerts and lavish overseas product launches - wants to build a new cellar, expanded kitchen, private tasting rooms and second restaurant at its existing complex on Pfieffer Rd.
Terramin has been fighting intense opposition by the winery and other neighbours against its plans to reopen a historic gold mine on an adjoining property.
The dispute escalated last year when the company lodged its appeal in the ERD Court, with State Parliament later hearing its lawyers had sent letters to people associated with Bird in Hand “largely just to piss the whole family off”.
The winery’s lawyers responded by telling the ERD Court it should dismiss the appeal by Terramin because it was “vexatious”.
They filed written submissions that Bird in Hand “had been unfairly burdened or put to serious and unjustified trouble and harassment by the appellant in this matter (Terramin)’’.
The submissions urged the court to have “serious doubts as to the appellant’s motivations and its true underlying interests in prosecuting this appeal”.
The court decided to proceed with a full hearing, with Terramin then arguing the proposed redevelopment of the winery was “too capacious”, “out of character” and non-compliant with the area’s zoning.
Bird in Hand responded that its proposed redevelopment would not have any detrimental aesthetic or environmental impacts and met the guidelines for tourism.
Dismissing the appeal, Judge Joanne Tracey, Commissioner Alan Rumsby and Commissioner John Hodgson said while there was “no dispute about the appropriateness” of expanding Bird in Hand’s operations, “the nub of the issue is scale”.
In a 43-page judgment, the trio said Bird in Hand was “one of the most recognisable, and largest, wineries in the Adelaide Hills”, crushing more than 2200 tonnes of grapes each vintage.
“Its winemaking, storage and administrative buildings are substantial,” they said.
“It supports a sizeable hospitality venue and is one of the key destination wineries in the region.
“In our view, the proposal does not over-commercialise or overwhelm an existing major tourism venue.”
Although the redevelopment did not comply with the area’s zoning, it met the tourism objectives set for the Adelaide Hills of increasing visitation while preserving local character.
“Whilst the proposal is beyond the scale of tourism development generally expected in the region, we consider it to be an appropriate ancillary service which does not over-commercialise this large-scale winery business, nor overwhelm the land and its productive and open landscape values, nor impact unreasonably on its abutting, and sensitive, residential neighbours.”
Bird in Hand founder and executive director Andrew Nugent said he was “delighted” with the ruling.
“It is an endorsement of our vision to promote the beauty and splendour of the Adelaide Hills, to a discerning global audience,” he said.
“We are looking forward to continuing to develop our family winery and assisting the local community – to whom we are most grateful and feel very fortunate to be a part of.”
A Terramin spokesperson said the company had achieved its “main objective” which was “to have the impacts on our property included in modelling by BIH Winery and ensure clarification of matters, such as the intended use of various parts of the neighbouring premises, which were not made available by BIH Winery earlier in proceedings”.
“We are pleased that the courts afforded us the opportunity to comment and have input into the conditions of the approval,” he said.
“ The subsequent conditions are a win for the community, specifically by ensuring appropriate traffic management, limiting noise and protecting water resources ensuring the development is consistent with the intention of the development plan.”
“Overall we are pleased with the outcome.”