Posted on May 14, 2026 by Katie Mortimer and Sinead Macauley 3

Proposed Amendments to the Resilience and Hazards SEPP to Improve Coastal Management

The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure is exhibiting proposed amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RH SEPP), and other legislation, described as providing clarity on existing provisions relating to:

• coastal subdivisions and boundary adjustments,
• trimming or removal of dangerous trees on land identified as ‘coastal wetlands’ or ‘littoral rainforest’,
• native vegetation management,
• how future wetland movement should be considered in development applications,
• controls for coastal protection works.

Submissions can be made on an Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) titled Improving coastal management and supporting blue carbon and ecosystem restoration projects until 1 June 2026.

Proposed Amendments to the RH SEPP: Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests 

Key amendments proposed to the RH SEPP in respect of land identified as ‘coastal wetlands’ and ‘littoral rainforest’ are:

• A new process to review the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map for minor map inaccuracies that can be determined by desktop analysis

The EIE proposes to rely on an established map review process managed by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) to update the Biodiversity Values Map (BV Map) (made under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016) for minor map inaccuracies.

Where a BV Map review undertaken by DCCEEW concludes that land is not a coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, an exemption will be provided from the need for development consent or to treat an application as designated development pursuant to section 2.7 of the RH SEPP.

• Changes to the subdivision of land containing coastal wetlands or littoral rainforest

Section 2.7(1) and (2) of the RH SEPP makes all development on land identified as ‘coastal wetlands’ or ‘littoral rainforest’ designated development, unless it is development for the purpose of environmental protection works.

Recent decisions of the Land and Environment Court have interpreted section 2.7, and whether a subdivision of land that contains coastal wetlands should be treated as designated development.

In Goldcoral Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Richmond Valley Council [2024] NSWLEC 77 (Goldcoral) Preston CJ held that, whilst subdivision of land is development as defined in section 1.5(1) of the EPA Act, the mere subdivision of land by procuring the registration of a plan of subdivision without undertaking any physical work on the land, does not involve the carrying out of development “on land”. As a result an application to subdivide a lot that contained coastal wetlands was not designated development (noting that application did not propose to divide the portion of land containing coastal wetlands). 

To clarify the policy intent of section 2.7 of the RH SEPP in response to Goldcoral and other decisions, section 2.7 is proposed to be amended to:

• • clarify that subdivisions that do not propose any new lot boundaries intersecting land identified as ‘coastal wetlands’ or ‘littoral rainforest’ on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map will not be designated development (development consent remains required),
  • specify that it captures subdivisions where any part of the land contains coastal wetlands or littoral rainforest, even if there is no physical carrying out of work (for subdivisions where boundary lines intersect land identified as ‘coastal wetlands’ or ‘littoral rainforest’ on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map).

• Exemptions for trees that pose an imminent risk to life or property

As set out above, section 2.7(1) and (2) of the RH SEPP make the clearing of native vegetation on land identified as ‘coastal wetlands’ or ‘littoral rainforest’ on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map designated development. This includes dangerous trees.

The EIE proposes to amend section 2.7 so that development consent is not required for the trimming or removal of a tree that is an imminent risk to human life or property, provided that written permission has first been provided by the relevant local council.

• Removing the requirement for development consent for public authorities to undertake weed management or revegetation activities within mapped coastal wetlands or littoral rainforests

Presently section 2.7 of the RH SEPP allows public authorities to undertake ‘environmental protection works’ without consent if the development is identified in the relevant certified coastal management program (CMP) or in a plan of management under the Local Government Act 1993 or Crown Land Management Act 2016. 

The EIE proposes amendments to section 2.7 so that development consent would not be required for public authorities to undertake weed management or revegetation activities
within mapped coastal wetlands or littoral rainforests, even when these activities are not identified in a CMP or plan of management.

• A new requirement for consent authorities to consider the impact of proposed development on land most likely to be subject to coastal wetland migration

Sections 2.8 and 2.10 of the RH SEPP, which contain matters that consent authorities must be satisfied of or consider for development on land ‘in proximity to coastal wetlands or littoral rainforest’ or ‘on land within the coastal environment area’, are proposed to be amended to require consideration of ‘the impact of proposed development on land most likely to be subject to coastal wetland migration’. 

The EIE explains the change is proposed, as land suitable to accommodate coastal wetlands is predicted to change in response to climate change, making anticipating the future migration pathways for coastal wetlands important to consider as part of development assessment.

Proposed Amendments to the RH SEPP: Coastal Protection Works

Key amendments proposed to the RH SEPP in respect of coastal protection works are:

• Clarifying the definition of Beach Nourishment 

Section 2.16(2) of the RH SEPP presently allows beach nourishment to be undertaken by a public authority without development consent.

In response to enquiries received by DPHI concerning whether ‘beach nourishment’ includes dredging or similar extractive processes to obtain the sand required for nourishment, the EIE proposes to insert a new definition of ‘beach nourishment’ to section 2.16, to make clear that dredging is not included in beach nourishment. The proposed definition is:

‘Beach nourishment means the addition of clean sand to a beach or the beach fluctuation zone for the purposes of restoration or augmentation. Beach nourishment does not include:
(a) beach scraping
(b) sand bypassing or backpassing
(c) the sourcing of sand, including dredging.’

• Making Beach Scraping a work that may be undertaken without consent 

A definition of ‘beach scraping’ is proposed to be inserted to section 2.16, proposed to be: ‘the movement of sand from the intertidal zone to the dune or upper beach by mechanical means’.

Beach scraping is proposed to be added to the list of coastal protection works that a public authority can undertake without development consent pursuant to section 2.16(2)

• Consideration of Potential Impacts of Beach Erosion on the Beach Fluctuation Zone 

Section 2.16 of the RH SEPP is proposed to be amended to require the potential impacts of beach erosion on the beach fluctuation zone to be fully considered when consent authorities assess development applications for coastal protection works, and when public authorities are undertaking emergency coastal protection works. The ‘beach fluctuation zone’ is already defined in the Coastal Management Act 2016. 

• Additional Matters for Assessment for DAs for Coastal Protection Works on Private Land 

Presently section 27 of the Coastal Management Act 2016 contains matters a consent authority must be satisfied of before granting development consent for the purpose of coastal protection works.

The EIE proposes amendments to section 2.16(1) of the RH SEPP to provide a ‘consistent assessment framework’ when consent authorities consider development applications for coastal protection works by a person other than a public authority. These matters will include:

• • relevant provisions of any certified CMP that applies to the land
  • nature-based solutions
  • locating the works as landward as possible within the private property
  • integration with any adjoining works and structures
  • Chapter 4, section 4.2.5 of the NSW Coastal Design Guidelines 2023
  • Coastal Crown Land Guidelines
  • access for maintenance is provided from within the private property, wherever possible and
  • Environmentally Friendly Seawalls Guideline
• Placing sandbags for 1 year 

Section 2.16 of the RH SEPP presently allows public authorities to place sandbags as coastal protection works as exempt development, if they are in place for no more than 90 days.

The EIE proposes to amend section 2.16, so that sandbags may be placed for up to 1 year as exempt development. This is stated to be in response to concerns from public authorities that 90 days does not provide sufficient time to prepare and lodge a development application for the construction of longer-term protection works.

The EIE also proposes amendments to either the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 or State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 to define ‘tidal restoration projects’ as a new land use, and allow them to be undertaken in any zone as development without consent if undertaken by or on behalf of a public authority, or with development consent in any other case.  The EIE provides various further detail concerning tidal restoration projects.

The EIE is available here: Explanation of intended effect: Improving coastal management and supporting blue carbon and ecosystem restoration projects.