NSW Regional Planning Panels and Coastal Protection Works
The passage of the NSW Coastal Management Act (CM Act) in 2016 was the first stage of “coastal reform” initiated by the Coalition Government in 2014. It was followed in 2018 by the release of the Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Note in 2021 the Coastal Management SEPP was embedded in Resilience and Hazards or R&H SEPP (Chapter 2)); a Coastal Management Manual; the reintroduction of a Coastal Council; and a funding package. Together this provided a new “framework” for coastal management and land-use planning in NSW. It was seen as a statement of government intent and strategic direction for the land use and management of a complex, dynamic and hazardous natural system.
Much can be said about the implementation of this NSW coastal management framework. Aspects of it were subject to an Auditor-General review in 2025. Here I focus on one aspect that was not reviewed, that of planning panels appointed by the Minister for Planning as consent authorities for development assessment of Coastal Protection Works (CPWs). In the CM Act s4, CPWs mean: (a) beach nourishment activities or works, and (b) activities or works to reduce the impact of coastal hazards on land adjacent to tidal waters, including (but not limited to) seawalls, revetments and groynes.
Sydney and Regional Planning Panels in NSW are set up under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Division 2.4 and Schedule 2. Each Panel has an independent Chair, two State appointed members and two local government nominated members. When a development application is for CPWs, Schedule 2 Part 4 s 20 (2) requires that at least one State appointed member (other than the Chair) must have expertise in coastal engineering or geomorphology. If State appointed members do not have this expertise, the Minister for Planning appoints at least one alternative member to the Panel, who has the relevant technical expertise. Although not specifically stated in Schedule 2, these State appointed members also need to understand the ways in which the consequences of CPWs will interact with the requirements of the EP&A Act, relevant SEPPs, Planning for Coastal Hazards Circular (PS 21-009), Coastal Design Guidelines, the CM Act, local council planning instruments, and strategic direction in a local council’s certified Coastal Management Program (prepared under the CM Act).
In this context, the operation of a Panel to which coastal experts have been appointed involves knowing the roles of both the Minister for Planning and the Minister administering the CM Act (who may be one and the same, or the Minister for Local Government as it has been in the past, or the Minister for the Environment as at present). Other NSW Government agencies also have objectives, legislation and policy that may be relevant to land-use planning decisions in the coastal zone, not always consistent with the objects of the CM Act.
Coastal experts appointed to a Planning Panel must be able to advise the Chair and local council members about short-term and long-term issues associated with the proposed structure, the beach, and environment. This is often an issue as the independent chair, local councilors, council staff and even their consultants are not usually familiar with the special coastal matters in the CMA, SEPP and Planning Circular etc. that require consideration including the need to assess risk of current and future coastal hazards.
Why did NSW adopt this approach for assessing development proposals for coastal protection works to mitigate likely risk of coastal hazards? There were a number of factors before the government in the period 2016-2018.
First there was the history of CPWs along the coast going back over 100 years, some planned like Bondi in the 1920s, others quite ad hoc as experienced at places such as Byron Bay. In addition, there was confusion as to what constituted “temporary” CPWs. The NSW coastal framework sought to address this legacy.
Second, the government decided that it would NOT provide local councils with a statewide map for Coastal Vulnerability Areas (CVAs) in the R&H SEPP. In contrast, the other three coastal management areas as defined in the CM Act were mapped by the NSW Government. Councils could use their own local planning instruments or produce maps of CVAs as part of making a Coastal Management Program. To date, with very few exceptions, councils have not followed the path of mapping CVAs. Many saw this as a state responsibility. Moreover, there are two demanding steps. One involved the process of mapping vulnerable areas as guided by the Coastal Manual; the other required certification of the map as a planning layer by the Minister for Planning.
Third, councils are interested parties in any future CPW. The planning panel process offered technical “expert” engagement not just as advisors but as active participants in the assessment process. Experts could also ensure a degree of consistency of decision-making along the coast. It was also a recognition that in the words of the Planning Circular (PS 21-009) “The NSW coast is dynamic and complex. Because hazards can migrate over time, coastal land may have a current exposure to a coastal hazard and/or a future exposure to a coastal hazard”. CPWs operate in a space where land can be lost to the sea and thus may impact coastal processes in such a way as to increase vulnerability. Unlike most DA assessments an understanding is required as to how a built structure can have irreversible effects as sea level continues to rise.
In the absence of certified CVAs by local councils, panels must apply relevant provisions in the R&H SEPP, in particular, Clause 12. This clause relates to development in the coastal zone generally. It states: “Development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone unless the consent authority (i.e. regional or local planning panel) is satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land”. The Planning Circular notes that the threshold test established under Clause 12 is “intentionally low”. CMA s27 allows for conditions to be imposed on the consent over the life of the works for the restoration of the beach or land adjacent to the beach caused by the presence of the works as well as maintenance of the works. It has often proved difficult for the panel to be satisfied that over the life of the proposed works they will not adversely impact public access and use of the beach, public safety, and adjoining properties (end effects).
Participation in recent DA assessments on the NSW Central Coast at Wamberal and North Entrance has yielded two different outcomes highlighting issues with the role of panels. In the case of Wamberal involving a large number of private landowners and land owned by Central Coast Council and State government, the council representatives declared perceived conflict of interest. This reduced the Panel to the Chair and two coastal experts. There was strong community opposition to the three DAs made up from groups of landowners within this embayment. In June 2026, the Panel refused the DAs on a number of grounds. They included incomplete owners’ consent for all land affected by the proposed development. Furthermore, the Panel was not satisfied that the applicants had provided a complete, coordinated and deliverable coastal protection outcome (details can be seen on NSW Planning Portal e.g. DA/947/2024). The applicants did not challenge this decision. However, the local council is in the process of changing its coastal engineering requirements as part of the implementation of its certified CMP. At the same time Central Coast Council is requesting assistance for emergency temporary works under s68 of the Reconstruction Authority Act. It is unclear where all this is heading.
The North Entrance Panel had all five members and proceeded to assemble information and hold briefings and meetings and seek further information from the applicant. As this took time the applicant took the opportunity to seek a “deemed refusal” (EP&A Act 8.11(1)) and appealed to the NSW Land and Environment Court (NSWLEC 1449). The court case did not involve the Panel in person nor consider its deliberations. There is no direct process for the Panel’s work to be used by the Court. Central Coast Council did not use the work of the Panel’s experts in its opposition to the development. It lost the case.
This is not the first time that panel deliberations have not been directly used by the Land and Environment Court. It raises the question as to whether the relevant Minister and Department should make changes to procedures for the assessment of impacts of coastal hazards in cases where endeavours of the appropriate planning panel are effectively bypassed by court processes. It is strange that Ministerial appointed experts on CPWs assessment are not formally engaged in such cases. Now an applicant can gain consent to a seawall through a legal process that can exclude a comprehensive examination in the court of all relevant matters embraced in the NSW coastal framework, in particular the objects of CM Act.
Experience over the last decade has revealed some important benefits of this Planning Panel structure for coastal land use planning decisions, but also some inconsistencies and weaknesses. My term on the CPWs panel has expired just at the time when the relevant SEPPs are being revised, there will be more use of Local Planning Panels, and the role of the Reconstruction Authority remains unclear. Still we need experts on panels who possess knowledge of coastal systems in all its complex and challenging dimensions.
Bruce Thom
Words by Prof Bruce Thom. Please respect the author’s thoughts and reference appropriately: (c) ACS, 2026. For correspondence about this blog post please email admin@australiancoastalsociety.org.au
#298