Physical Commencement of Development Consents – Part Two

Mark Evans • February 27, 2025

Development consents granted after 15 May 2020 face stricter requirements to determine whether they are substantially commenced and thus remain valid. This article reviews recent case law in New South Wales (NSW) and outlines the types of work that can qualify as physical commencement.


Changes to Legislation


Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (2021 Regulation) has raised the standard for what constitutes physical commencement. For development consents granted after 15 May 2020, certain activities are explicitly excluded from being sufficient to meet this requirement. These activities include:


- Creating boreholes for soil testing

- Removing soil or water for testing

- Conducting survey work (e.g., placing pegs)

- Acoustic testing

- Removing vegetation as an ancillary task

- Marking the ground to indicate development plans


The aim is to ensure that more substantial work is completed to validate the commencement of a development consent.


The comprehensive case law on the question of what constitutes physical commencement continues to apply. For discussion on the test under the previous rules and the considerable case law on physical commencement, see our earlier article here:


Physical commencement and lapsing of development consents


Since our earlier article, some more recent case law gives insight into how the Land and Environment Court applies the test of physical commencement.


The test for physical commencement


It is helpful to restate the test for physical commencement.


Section 4.53(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) provides:


(4) Development consent for:

a. the erection of a building, or

b. the subdivision of land, or

c. the carrying out of a work,


does not lapse if building, engineering or construction work relating to the building, subdivision or work is physically commenced on the land to which the consent applies before the date on which the consent would otherwise lapse under this section.


Key Legal Cases


2 Phillip Rise Pty Ltd v Kempsey Shire Council [2023] NSWLEC 28


In this case, it was determined that for a development consent to be physically commenced, the work must relate directly to the consent. The court highlighted the importance of examining the scope of the activity rather than who performed it or the underlying reasons for the work.


Facts


The oil company Caltex conducted soil testing required for environmental remediation on the landowner’s site. The landowner granted Caltex access to the site to carry out the testing. The question arose whether this testing by a third party for environmental remediation reasons, could be relied on to satisfy compliance with a condition of the landowner’s development consent.


The Applicant submitted that the correct approach was not to ascertain why the testing had been undertaken, but to ask what had been sought to be achieved by the scope of the testing and the results from it. Considering the question of purpose on the ‘what’ rather than the ‘why’ basis meant that the results from the borehole within the Applicant’s site were what was relevant for the purposes of satisfaction of conditions of the development consent.


Outcome


The court ruled that the consent had not lapsed, affirming that the testing met the necessary conditions despite being conducted by an external party.


Key takeaways


It is the scope of the activity, rather than who carried it out or why it was carried out, that is relevant for determining whether the activity ‘relates to’ the development consent. The work does not need to be carried out by or directly on behalf of the beneficiary of the development consent to constitute physical commencement.


Test for physical commencement of complying development certificates


Chu v Inner West Council [2022] NSWLEC 14


This case marked the first evaluation of physical commencement for complying development certificates (CDCs) by a court.


Facts


A landowner challenged a development control order issued by the Council, claiming physical commencement through activities by an asbestos consultant and tree work.


An asbestos consultant had attended the site to assess the presence of any asbestos containing material. He had engaged in a visual inspection and physical tapping of internal and external wall cladding to assess presence of such material and had prepared a report of the inspection.


An arborist had pruned the trees on the site in preparation for demolition work. Conditions in the CDC required the landowner to do certain things before any ‘site works, building or demolition begins’. At the time of the tree pruning, the landowners had not complied with these conditions.


Findings


The asbestos consultant's activities were deemed insufficient for physical commencement as they did not involve any actual construction work.


The tree pruning performed by an arborist was found to be unlawful because it constituted “site works” which did not comply with the CDC conditions and therefore could not be relied on.


Key takeaways


  • The Court may interpret s 4.29 and s 4.53 of the Act, in relation to CDCs and development consents, differently.
  • Work can only constitute physical commencement when it is lawfully conducted. This means that all conditions applicable to the work must be complied with.


What is the relationship between satisfaction of deferred commencement conditions and physical commencement?


A development consent is not effective until all deferred commencement conditions are satisfied. If these conditions are not met within the specified timeframe, the consent lapses (Section 4.53(6)).


Once these conditions are fulfilled, the consent must then be physically commenced to prevent any lapse under Section 4.53(1) of the EP&A Act. Importantly, the timeframe for physical commencement does not begin until the consent becomes operational, meaning the relevant work must occur after the deferred commencement conditions are satisfied.


Is intention relevant?


Developers do not need to demonstrate genuine intent to complete the project. The focus is on whether the work is genuinely required by the consent. Even if a developer performs work solely to prevent the consent from lapsing, this does not disqualify the work from being considered a valid physical commencement. This was addressed in Besmaw Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (2003) 127 LGERA 413 (at [109]-[112]) and remains the case.


Conclusion


  • Developers must undertake more than minor activities, such as digging boreholes or placing survey pegs, to demonstrate physical commencement.
  • The timeframe for physical commencement begins only after deferred commencement conditions are satisfied.
  • The motivation behind the works is irrelevant as long as they relate to the consent.
  • Once the consent has been physically commenced, there is no further risk of lapse if work does not continue for some time.


Contact us for further assistance


We can assist by considering the individual circumstances of your development consent, granted either on or after 15 May 2020, and advise on its activation by ‘physical commencement’ of certain works to ensure it does not lapse.


We can also undertake a detailed review of any proposed conditions of consent and advise on any opportunity to minimise your risk in relation to enlivening your future development consent.


If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this article, please feel free to get in touch.




Require further Assistance? Please do not hesitate to call us on (02) 9145 0900 or make an enquiry below.

A man in a suit is sitting on the steps of a building.

Servicing all of NSW, Whiteacre provides expert property law and planning and environment law advice and assistance.

Planning Law Advice

Land and Environment Court Appeals

Voluntary Planning Agreements and Contributions

Development Control Orders and Enforcement

Property Development Advice and Due Diligence

Title Structuring

Easements and Covenants

Strata and Community Title legislation

Book an initial consultation through our website with our planning law solicitor. Whether it's about planning and environment law or property law, you can approach us and discuss your matter to make sure we are a good fit for your requirements.

BOOK ONLINE
By Mark Evans May 4, 2025
This article provides a general overview of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme, followed by a discussion of the tax implications of establishing a biodiversity stewardship site for Councils. What is the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme? The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (the Scheme ) is a market-based scheme that is administered by the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water ( Department ) and aims to help address the loss of biodiversity and threatened species in NSW. It seeks to do so by creating incentives for landowners to improve or maintain biodiversity values as a means of offsetting impacts on other areas. The Scheme is established by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 ( BC Act ) . How the Scheme works Councils can establish a ‘biodiversity stewardship site’ ( Stewardship Site ) on eligible land within NSW by means of entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement ( Stewardship Agreement ) with the Department: s 6.17 BC Act. In doing so, Councils commit themselves to enhancing and protecting biodiversity values on the Stewardship Site. On execution of a Stewardship Agreement, the Council is entitled to receive an amount of biodiversity credits which are created by the Department. The amount of biodiversity credits are calculated by the Council’s accredited ecologist (and verified by the Department) in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the Biodiversity Assessment Method ( BAM ): s 6.7 BC Act. Biodiversity credits are created in respect of existing biodiversity values on the land and management actions to be carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement. A biodiversity credit remains in force unless it is cancelled or retired: s 6.18 BC Act. The market value of the biodiversity credits is calculated by the Department at the time of creation. Sale and transfer of biodiversity credits Biodiversity credits may be sold by the Council to a buyer (or in parcels to a number of buyers) seeking to offset the impact of actions detrimental to biodiversity or to permanently secure conservation outcomes. The sale price of the biodiversity credits is determined by agreement between the Council and the buyer. Alternatively, biodiversity credits may be used by Council to offset negative biodiversity impacts arising from an activity carried out under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 : s 7.15 BC Act. The Council may transfer biodiversity credits to a buyer or third party: s 6.19 BC Act. The transfer is made through an application to the Department by the parties to the transfer. The transfer is not effective until the transfer is authorised by the Department and registered in the register of biodiversity credits: s 6.20 BC Act. On the registration of the first transfer of the biodiversity credits, the Total Fund Deposit ( TFD ) specified in the Stewardship Agreement (or a proportion, if not all the credits are transferred) is required to be paid by the buyer of the biodiversity credits into the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund (the Fund ): s 6.21 BC Act. The TFD is a fixed amount of money used to cover the long-term management costs of a Stewardship Site. It is a calculated value representing the present value of future payments needed to fund the agreed management actions. Contracts for the sale of biodiversity credits between the Council and purchasers will state that the credit owner is entitled to the full amount of the agreed sale price of the biodiversity credits, including the TFD, and that the credit owner will have the obligation to pay the TFD. Once the credits have been ‘used’ to offset negative biodiversity impacts and to permanently secure the conservation of biodiversity, they are ‘retired’ such that they can no longer be used for any other purpose: s 6.27 BC Act. Annual payments are made out of the Fund to the Council in respect of management actions carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement: s 6.34 BC Act. Management actions typically include obligations to fence areas of land, control exotic pest species, carry out bushfire management and weed management. In summary, annual payments made out of the Fund can help Councils meet the expenses they currently incur managing large tracts of land while achieving significant biodiversity conservation outcomes. Disclaimer This is a general overview of the Scheme and tax implications. The information in this article is general in nature and is intended as a guide only. It is not designed to be, nor should it be regarded, as legal or accounting advice. The business and financial structure for each landholder or entity managing a biodiversity stewardship site or conservation area is likely to be unique. Therefore, the way taxation law applies will depend on individual circumstances and you should consult a professional tax adviser before engaging with the Scheme or entering into a Stewardship Agreement. Capital Gains The ATO deems that a capital gains event (type D4) occurs on entry into a Stewardship Agreement: s 104-47(1) ITAA. The landowner makes a capital gain if the “capital proceeds” are more than that part of the “cost base” of the land that is apportioned to the covenant. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA. GST on entry into Stewardship Agreement When the Department and the Council enter into a Stewardship Agreement, the Council makes a taxable supply by entering into the agreement in return for the biodiversity credits issued by the Department and the Department makes a taxable supply of biodiversity credits in return for the Council entering into the agreement. These are non-monetary transactions. The Department and the Council (if both are registered for GST): are required to pay GST in respect of their supply, calculated on the estimated value of the credits; and can claim an input tax credit (ITC) in respect of the tax invoice received from the other party. If a Council is registered for GST, the Department will issue a Department GST invoice and Recipient Created Tax Invoice (RCTI) on behalf of the Council when the Department sends the registered BSA to the Council. The Department will use the estimated market value of the biodiversity credits for the purposes of these invoices. As the GST payable and the input tax credit that can be claimed are the same amount, the net GST position for both the Council and Department is zero. This means that these invoices do not need to be paid. However, both the Department and the Council are required to account for the GST payment and the input tax credit in their business activity statements (BAS). Capital gains from sale or transfer of credits A CGT event (type A1) occurs upon the sale of biodiversity credits. The Council may make a capital gain or loss depending on the capital proceeds and cost base of the credits: s 104-10(4) of the ITAA. A biodiversity credit constitutes a CGT asset: s 108-5 of the ITAA. CGT event (type A1) happens when the Council disposes of biodiversity credits: s 104-10 of the ITAA. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA. GST on sale of biodiversity credits For the purposes of GST, the sale of credits is a taxable supply of goods. This means that the biodiversity credit price should include GST that the Council then needs to pay to the ATO. Receipt of annual payments from the Biobanking Trust Fund Annual payments from the Fund made by the Department to the Council are a contractual payment for the performance of services and should be ordinary income and assessable for income tax purposes. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA . GST on annual payments The supply of stewardship services by the Council to the Department in return for payment of the annual payment should be a taxable supply. The Department will issue a recipient created tax invoice (RCTI) and include an amount for GST when making the annual stewardship payments for management actions the Council delivers. Conclusion Councils can establish biodiversity stewardship sites on eligible land within NSW by means of entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements with the Secretary of the Department. On execution of a Stewardship Agreement, the Council is entitled to receive an amount of biodiversity credits. Biodiversity credits may be sold by the Council to a buyer seeking to offset the impact of actions detrimental to biodiversity or to permanently secure conservation outcomes. Biodiversity credits may be used by Council to offset negative biodiversity impacts arising from an activity carried out by Council. Some of the proceeds of the sale of biodiversity credits must be paid into the Fund to cover ongoing management actions and costs. Annual payments are made out of the Fund to the Council in respect of management actions carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement. Management actions typically include obligations to fence areas of land, control exotic pest species, carry out bushfire management and weed management. In summary, annual payments made out of the Fund could help Councils meet the expenses they currently incur managing large tracts of land while achieving significant biodiversity preservation outcomes. Disclaimer This is a general overview of the Scheme and tax implications. The information in this article is general in nature and is intended as a guide only. It is not designed to be, nor should it be regarded, as legal or accounting advice. The business and financial structure for each landholder or entity managing a biodiversity stewardship site or conservation area is likely to be unique. Therefore, the way taxation law applies will depend on individual circumstances and you should consult a professional tax adviser before engaging with the Scheme or entering into a Stewardship Agreement.
Navigating Land and Environment Court
By Mark Evans March 20, 2025
Expert Legal Insights on Development Approvals and Appeals with Planning Lawyer Mark Evans
shared driveways
By Mark Evans February 13, 2025
Shared driveways A common example of a shared driveway is where a right of carriageway passes through one neighbours’ (burdened) land into the other neighbour’s (benefited) land.
tiny homes
By Mark Evans November 27, 2024
In Part 1, we considered tiny homes and caravans on private land. That article can be accessed here Part 1 . In Part 2, we turn our attention to tiny homes and manufactured homes.
tiny homes
By Mark Evans November 22, 2024
In this article we explore tiny homes, caravans, and manufactured homes.
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson November 14, 2024
The general rule is that a development application ( DA ) is to be determined based on the law applicable at the time of determination of the DA, not at the time of lodgement: Sofi v Wollondilly Shire Council (1975) 31 LGERA 416.
When subdivision may not be considered development carried out on land
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson October 31, 2024
Subdivision, alone, may not constitute development “on land” and thus trigger development restrictions. 
Biodiversity Credits
By Mark Evans October 18, 2024
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has released a summary of workshops and stakeholders’ submissions concerning the functioning of the NSW Biodiversity Credits Market.
Development
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson October 10, 2024
It is now well established that a development consent cannot be obtained to authorise works that have already been carried out. The classic example is a building that has been built without development consent.
Planning law
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson September 26, 2024
This article discusses the characterisation of land use in NSW planning law.
More Posts