Posted on August 12, 2026 by Taylor Finnegan and Anna Sinclair 9

Managing Coastal Hazards: the Permissibility of Coastal Protection Works on Private Land

Protecting beachfront properties from exposure to coastal erosion and hazards is an ongoing problem across much of the NSW coast and made worse by climate change. Recently, the Land and Environment Court (Court) considered whether development consent should be granted to a contentious seawall to protect private properties, and had to consider the appropriate form of the proposed protection works, the impacts of the works to the coastal zone and whether the works were in the public interest.

The decision provides useful guidance on how the Court may approach the development assessment of private coastal protection works in the future and highlights the difficulties and complexities of coordinating individual efforts to protect beachfront properties with broader scale government coastal management strategies.

Background

In Horton Coastal Engineering Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1449, the owners of three residential flat buildings at The Entrance North appealed against the Council’s deemed refusal of a development application for permanent coastal protection works.

The subject site had experienced coastal erosion for decades, including during major storm events in 2020 and 2025, which destroyed protective dunes and eroded rear yards. The proposed development relevantly comprised a 90m long reinforced concrete seawall intended to protect the apartments from continuing erosion and coastal hazards (Seawall). The Seawall was entirely located on private property.

The site was mapped as ‘Coastal Use Area’ and ‘Coastal Environmental Area’ under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RH SEPP) and the Council argued that development consent should be refused having regard to the requirements of ss2.10 and 2.11.

In summary, those provisions provide that development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority has considered whether the development is likely to cause an adverse impact to a number of matters and be satisfied that the development has been designed, sited or will be managed to avoid, minimise or mitigate those impacts, including:

1. coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,
2. existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore or beach for members of the public, including persons with a disability, and
3. the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast.

The Council also contended that development consent should be refused having regard to s27 of the Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act), which provides that consent should not be granted to coastal protection works that unreasonably limit or are likely to unreasonably limit public access to or the use of a beach.

The Council’s case was that the Seawall would cause an adverse impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, impact coastal foreshore and adjacent properties and create an adverse precedent for similar development to occur along the coast. The Council argued that the immediate interest of the landowners to protect their properties should not outweigh the public interest in maintaining the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast.

There was also significant community opposition to the Seawall on similar grounds.

Decision

Impacts to visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast

In considering the terms of s 2.11 of the RH SEPP, the Commissioner found that while the Seawall was likely to have an adverse impact on “the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast”, she was satisfied that the impact was not unacceptable.

In reaching this conclusion, the Commissioner relevantly found that the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast were already degraded somewhat by the presence of the built form immediately on the coast. The adverse impact was limited to periods when the beach is in its fully eroded state and the Seawall will not have an adverse impact when the sand is at higher levels.

Further, the coastal protection works were anticipated for the site by the planning instruments and the Central Coast Open Coast Coastal Management Plan (OCCMP). Importantly, the Commissioner noted that the site has a history of being impacted by coastal erosion events and stated that in the absence of a plan for coastal retreat, “it is axiomatic that land vulnerable to coastal erosion that remains zoned for built form development, will reasonably be anticipated to have development to protect that built form“.

After considering engineering evidence on the viability and appropriateness of alternative protection works, including a rock revetment, sand nourishment or a stepped seawall, the Commissioner found that the Seawall was an acceptable solution given that those other protection works were not suitable for the site. The Commissioner also found that the requirements of s2.11 had been met because the adverse impacts of the Seawall could not be reasonably avoided, but the Seawall had been designed and sited to minimise those impacts.

Impact on the coastal foreshore and adjacent properties

The Council also contended that the Seawall should not be approved as it would have a number of impacts on the coastal foreshore and adjacent properties, including impacts to public access, public safety, coastal processes, wave behaviour, the surf zone and the beach profile.

While the issues raised by the Council emphasise the potential problems that may arise with properties adopting individual measures to protect against coastal erosion, rather than long term whole-area solutions, the Commissioner ultimately found that a number of these impacts were not supported by the evidence. Where they were, the parties’ engineering experts had agreed that the impacts could be managed by conditions of the consent.

Public interest

Finally, the Council contended that the Seawall was not in the public interest because it would set an undesirable precedent and may lead to continuous seawalls along North Entrance Beach and other Council beaches.

It further argued that any long term solution for the site should be developed by the government through endorsed Coastal Management Plans (under the CM Act) (CMP), to ensure that the optimal design is achieved for the broader area. It submitted that the Seawall was not in the public interest and consent should be refused because:

1. the OCCMP informs the strategic direction for coastal protection works and provides for a consistent treatment of all properties in the area,
2. the Seawall is confined to the site and proposes a different form of works to that set out in the OCCMP,
3. approval of the Seawall would pre-empt the engineering design requirements (EDR) for the site where those have not yet been developed by the Council, and
4. the public interest is better served by the EDRs being developed so that there is a uniform approach to coastal protection works in the area.

The Commissioner did not accept that the risk of creating an adverse precedent was, of itself, a reason to refuse consent. In addressing the Council’s concern that the approval of the Seawall would lead to the undesirable outcome of continuous sea walls, the Commissioner emphasised that a seawall was the acceptable solution in the present circumstances due to the unique characteristics of the site. Whether it would be replicated on other sites would depend on the facts and circumstances of those sites.

The Commissioner also noted that if the Council had finalised the EDR within the OCCMP or incorporated controls in its development control plan for coastal seawalls, including a preferred design for a stepped wall, any new development applications would have had to be considered against those EDRs or controls.

Takeaways

Whilst the outcome of this decision is based on the specific facts of the case, it provides a useful example of how the planning system balances the rights of property owners to protect private property from coastal hazards, having regard to the council’s coastal management strategies and against the impacts of those protective measures to public beaches.

In circumstances where broadscale measures have not been taken by State or local government, coastal protection works confined to a particular site may be approved to protect private vulnerable land that remains zoned for built form development, provided that the development is designed, sited or managed to avoid, minimise or mitigate any adverse impacts to the coastal zone.

This case is also an important reminder for coastal councils that if an applicant seeks consent for private coastal protection works, a CMP that specifies the preferred protection works for a site or area will be given weight, but it is not determinative of the type of protection works that are permissible. The development assessment must consider whether the proposed works comply with the relevant planning controls and are suitable having regard to the specific circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, if a council has preferred EDRs for specific types of coastal protection works, they should be specified in the CMP or a development control plan to seek to ensure that any private protection works are required to comply with those requirements.

You can read the full text of the judgment here: Horton Coastal Engineering Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1449

If you have questions regarding this article, please leave a comment below or contact Anna Sinclair or Taylor Finnegan.