Subdivision is not for any ultimate purpose - it is just subdivision

Mark Evans • December 15, 2023

Subdivision is not development for any purpose other than the simple division of land.

Often consent authorities (local councils) will imply that subdivision must be for a purpose. Following subdivision, the reasoning goes, the subdivided lots are intended to be used for a purpose (for example a residential dwelling) and accordingly, council will impose conditions of consent regarding the end use of the subdivided lots. 


This is true, to a point. Subdivision applications should not impose constraints on future use of subdivided lots, other than in exceptional circumstances.


This article explores the concept of subdivision in planning law and the end use of subdivided lots.


Introduction


“Subdivision of land” is defined in s 6.2(1) of the E nvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ( EPA Act ) as: 


“the division of land into 2 or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition”.


Subdivision does not constitute a use of land. It follows that a proposal for subdivision does not seek approval for development for any particular purpose.


This conclusion is supported by case law. 


Judicial consideration


In Smith v Randwick Municipal Council (1950) 17 LGR (NSW) 246 ( Smith ) Sugerman J explained, at [250], that:


“The approval of a subdivision into lots is in law, the approval of the subdivision simpliciter not its approval with any condition or for any particular purpose, such as shops or dwellings et cetera.”


His Honour continued:


“The Local Government Act does not contribute any particular effect to approval of a subdivision as regards the uses to which the subdivided land may be put, or the buildings which may be erected upon it.”


This makes sense. For example, a landowner could subdivide a parcel of rural land into two lots. After the subdivision, that same landowner could build a poultry farm on one lot and operate a gravel quarry on the other lot. The range of uses to which the subdivided land could be put following subdivision make it impossible to imply beforehand what use the land may serve. 


Why local councils get this wrong 


Unfortunately, when assessing development applications for subdivision many local council planners imply a use for the proposed subdivision and then impose conditions of consent relating to how the subdivided lots must be used, where dwellings and fences can be built, driveways and so on.


It's likely that this derives from the planning principle in Parrott v Kiama [2004] NSWLEC 77 ( Parrott) . In that case, Roseth SC at [17] posed the question “When should a subdivision application include information on the buildings to be built on the resulting allotments?”


Roseth SC stated: 


“It is normal practice in Australia to subdivide land without constraints on the buildings that can later be built. While this practice is appropriate in most cases, it is not always so.”


Roseth SC held that a subdivision application should provide constraints on future building in a number of specific, limited circumstances. Those circumstances are:

 

  1. when the proposed allotments are smaller than usual
  2. when the proposed lots are environmentally sensitive; or
  3. where significant impacts on neighbours is likely and careful design is required to minimize those impacts.

 

There is an increasing trend amongst Council planners to take this planning principle and apply it across the board to all subdivisions. This overreaching misses the point in Parrott that it may only be appropriate to apply an end use in a number of rare and limited circumstances. 


Cases following Parrott have confirmed the broad principle that subdivision does not involve any use of land. 


In Broker Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2008] NSWCA 311 ( Broker ), although dealing with development contributions, Campbell JA (with whom Handley AJA agreed) rejected the proposition that the consent for residential subdivision was an implied consent for the use of the land for residential purposes (at [73]). The four bases for this conclusion were set out by Campbell JA at [75] to [87]:


“(1) Firstly, the subdivision consents were for no more than the subdivision of the land. While the lots were of a size and configuration and the conditions imposed required services to be provided to those lots and restrictions as to users under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1988 (NSW) to be imposed that were “obviously intended to make the lots ones that would ultimately be suitable for residential occupation”, the consents were not implied consents to any occupation of the land, whether for residential or other purposes.


(2) Secondly, even if there were any implied consent to residential use of the lots in the subdivision, the implied consent would not be unconditional and would not inhibit the respondent’s later consideration of development applications concerning the land.


(3) Thirdly, nothing in former section 81A(3) of the EP&A Act stated that a development consent for the subdivision of land authorised any other activity at all.


(4) Fourthly, Campbell JA found the appellant’s submission to be contrary to several cases, including the judgment of Sugerman J in [the] Smith case and Preston J in Wehbe.”


Finally, this question arose recently in Williams v Shellharbour City Counci l [2020] NSWLEC 3. In that case a separate question was raised for determination, whether the proposed subdivision being a community title subdivision was “development for any purpose”. If the proposed development was “development for a purpose” it was permissible with consent. If the proposed subdivision was not “development for a purpose” the consent authority lacked jurisdiction to grant consent to the proposed development.


His Honour Moore J applied the Court of Appeal’s ratio in Broker and accepted the Council’s argument that, commonly, a development application will be for subdivision and subsequent use. But not always. An applicant can choose a two-stage approach - being approval for subdivision and, subsequently (and only available if subdivision was approvable and was approved), application for development consent for any proposed use(s) of the land as subdivided. 


Accordingly, His Honour held that the proposed subdivision was not development for a “purpose’ and the consent authority lacked jurisdiction to grant consent.


Conclusion


While local councils may advocate for specific purposes and impose conditions on subdivisions, it is crucial to recognize that subdivision in NSW is fundamentally about dividing land into smaller lots. 


The planning principle in Parrott applies only to subdivision applications in limited circumstances.


Further, unless a development application specifies subdivision and a subsequent use, for example construction of a dwelling house, the development application is for subdivision alone and should be assessed as such.




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
Physical Commencement of Development Consents
By 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.
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.
More Posts