When subdivision may not be considered development carried out on land

Mark Evans and William Jamieson • October 31, 2024

Subdivision, alone, may not constitute development “on land” and thus trigger development restrictions. 

Introduction


This article explores a recent decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court in which the Court held that paper subdivision of land, without more, may not constitute subdivision “on land” and may thus not trigger obligations imposed by instruments such as the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RAH SEPP).


The recent decision of Goldcoral Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Richmond Valley Council [2024] NSWLEC 77 (Goldcoral), which aligns with similar cases concerning subdivision and development, clearly illustrates this point.


Subdivision – General Principles


Subdivision of land involves dividing land into 2 or more parts and often involves physical works (for which a subdivision works certificate is required) such as roads, earthworks and drainage works being carried out on the land. Subdivision is a species of development and is defined in s 6.2(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) as:


“the division of land into 2 or more parts… [to adapt] for separate occupation, use, or disposition”. 


Subdivision is often prohibited within sensitive ecological zones. Even when permissible, it may require extensive reporting and other onerous requirements. But what is being prohibited? The subdivision of land into 2 or more parts or the carrying out of works to achieve the subdivision?


Issues often arise with developments when a proposed development spans multiple parcels of land with different zoning. For example, a single land parcel may contain land zoned R2: Low Density Residential and a small portion of C2: Environmental Conservation. Further, areas within those zones may be mapped on local or statewide maps as containing heritage items or coastal wetlands and other areas of high biodiversity significance. It therefore becomes critical to define the exact nature of the subdivision and whether subdivision is being carried out on all the land, or on parts of the land outside sensitive areas.


Goldcoral 


In Goldcoral, the developer appealed the Council’s refusal of a development application that set out the first stage of a residential subdivision. The land in question contained residential and conservation zones and a thin sliver of area mapped as sensitive coastal wetlands under the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map under the RAH SEPP. The land proposed for the residential subdivision was wholly within the R1 General Residential zone.


Issue


Nonetheless, the Council contended that development would still be carried out on land identified as coastal wetlands because one of the lots within the land to be subdivided contained a sliver of land mapped as coastal wetlands. The argument goes that because subdivision is a species of “development” under the EPA Act and because s 6.2(2) of the EPA Act defines subdivision as including “procuring of the registration in the Office of the Registrar-General of … a plan of subdivision…” the definitions in the EPA Act make it clear that subdivision of land does not require the carrying out of works on land; merely dividing land by drawing lines on a plan of subdivision that is registered could suffice.


Consequently, because Goldcoral was carrying out development on land mapped as coastal wetlands, it was potentially caught by the RAH SEPP as integrated development; requiring an Environmental Impact Statement.


Chapter 2 of the RAH SEPP maps and regulates the development of coastal management areas. Clause 2.7(1) requires development consent for development “on land” including clearing or harming vegetation, earthworks, constructing a levee, land draining, environmental protection works, and “any other development”. 


Council contended that subdivision fell within “any other development”. 


Resolution 


Chief Justice Preston of the LEC at [78], rejected the Council’s argument that the subdivision should be considered development “on land”, for two reasons:


-The proposed subdivision did not involve any division of the land identified as coastal wetlands.

-Mere subdivision by procuring registration does not involve carrying out development on land.


The subdivision itself was not enough to enliven the requirements under the RAH SEPP.


Boundary of Subdivision


Preston CJ reviewed the phrase “any other development” contained within cl 2.7(1)(d) of the RAH SEPP. While all parties agreed that subdivision is considered development, Preston CJ found at [78] that its boundaries ran along the outer edge of the sensitive coastal area.


Similar court decisions support that, SEPP application should be excluded where subdivision has not impacted the land zoned for protection: Hood Rural Resources Pty Ltd v Bathurst Regional Council [2009] NSWLEC 1366 at [48]; Bregenhoj v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 117 at [24].


It was suggested that as the proposal did not impact (i.e. subdivide) the coastal wetlands, the RAH SEPP should not apply. 


Physical Work


Preston CJ also determined, at [79], that mere subdivision of land through procuring a plan does not involve development “on land”. Preston CJ noted that the examples of development within clause 2.7(1) of the RAH SEPP, all required physical work on the land. The catch-all “any other development” also required doing something on the land. 


Subdivision is considered development “on land” where it extends to physical works such as the preparation of roads and lots: Planners North v Ballina Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 120 at [33]. However, previous court decisions support Preston CJ’s finding that without proposed work on the land zoned for protection, designated development requirements should not apply: High Dune Pty Ltd as Trustee for High Dune Unit Trust v Wollongong City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1181 at [22]; Kingshill Development No 1 Pty Ltd and Kingshill No 2 Pty Ltd v Port Stephens Council and Hunter and Central Coast Regional Planning Panel [2023] NSWLEC 1478 at [351].


Preston CJ stressed at [79] – [80] that:

“… The procuring of the registration of a plan of subdivision might involve the subdivision of land, which is development, but that subdivision is not “carried out on land.” To carry out development on land involves doing something on the land…”


Conclusion 


Goldcoral clearly illustrates the approach to subdivision and designated development. It reaffirms the idea that subdivision, alone, does not amount to development “on land” under instruments like the RAH SEPP. 


Goldcoral is not authority for the proposition that subdivision is not development. It clearly is. Goldcoral clarifies the position that, in some contexts, subdivision is considered development “on land” where it extends to physical works carried out on the land. It is critical to consider the context of a proposed subdivision, its boundaries, and whether physical works are to be conducted. 


Key Takeaways


  • Subdivision is development and caught by the EPA Act.
  • Subdivision near sensitive areas may not automatically trigger development restrictions.
  • Subdivision without physical works is not considered development "on land”.


The contents of this article are a general guide and intended for educational purposes only. Determination of the types of issues discussed in this article is complex and often varies from case to case and involves an understanding of matters of fact and degree. Opinions on those matters can vary and be matters on which reasonable minds may differ.


DO NOT RELY ON THIS ARTICLE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE.


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.
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